🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance 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 monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "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 overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"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."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."