🔗 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 surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims 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 appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction 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, although certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

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 represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."