🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld 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 physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden 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, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

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

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."