🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments 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."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."