🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by 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 affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located 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 United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact 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 permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions 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 advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."