🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "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 devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially 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 permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."