🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, 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 compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target 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 nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – 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 hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues 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 represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."