🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm 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 stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility 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 anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."