🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing 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 men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

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

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."