🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence 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, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect 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 held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."