🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

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 psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

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

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."