🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers 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 frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."