🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages 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 residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability 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 anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."