🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

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

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling 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 information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "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 foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust 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 diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."