🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. 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 allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."