🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body 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.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a 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 cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."