🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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 took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case 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 intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."