🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."