🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

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

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust 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 diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."