🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men 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 claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."