🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing 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

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

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

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."