🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country 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 offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction 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, although some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly 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 diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."