🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although some activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."