🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."