🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."