🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

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

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."