🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

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 court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."