🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action 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 psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."