🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."