🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek 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 Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located 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 United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."