🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities 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 high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if some acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."