🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

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 state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

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 legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact 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 brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."