🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures 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 claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if some acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating 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 opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact 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 use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."