🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor 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 men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."