🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."