🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying 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.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."