🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing 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 stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, 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 compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."