🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation 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 offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place abroad. The court also ruled 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 surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "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 hacked my device. 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."