🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, 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 noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."