🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."