🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

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 burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence 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 nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."