🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

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

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."