🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially 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 permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

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