🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

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

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, 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 overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."