🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

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

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact 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 brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."