🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

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

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. 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 resulting from an act in the UK, even if some activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking 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 nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."