🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially 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 use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."