🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek 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 Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although some acts take place 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 noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."