🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking 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 resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust 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 advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

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