🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation 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 compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies 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 provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, 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 denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

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