🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

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 cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."