🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices 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 provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

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

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if some acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust 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 use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."