🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

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 reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."