🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices 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. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."