🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."