🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in 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 claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence 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 UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."