🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high 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 ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a 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 hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."