🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Evidence

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, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect 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 action in the UK, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly 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 allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case 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 advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."