🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue 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 London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."