🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if some acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind 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: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."