🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

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, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."