🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 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 provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked 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 held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."