🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October 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 state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."