🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims 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 law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."