🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

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

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act 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 decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, 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 visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."