🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case 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 waited a long time for clarity on these matters."