🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."