🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

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

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. 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 held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."