🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

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. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by 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 standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust 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 state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."