🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."