🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer 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 protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted 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 high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. 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 experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"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."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."