🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue 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 immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction 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 target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."