🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, 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 balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."