🔗 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 stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision 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 caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."