🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust 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 use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."