🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. 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 had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying 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 withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."