🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation 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 surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."