🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track 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 men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant 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 act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected 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 supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."