🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."