🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly 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 state protection to pursue 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 responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."