🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."