🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if certain acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."