🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."