🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."