🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised 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'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."