🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence 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 use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."