🔗 Share this article

Bahrain 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 stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "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 overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use 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 accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."