🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."