🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices 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 legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

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