🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country 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.

Should 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.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October 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 country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

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 country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust 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 hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."