🔗 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 installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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 Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."