🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. 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 brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."