🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus 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 sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."