🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

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

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."