🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK 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 "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

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