🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted 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 initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction 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 foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."