🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

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

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers 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, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."