🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

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, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers 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 legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion 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 equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states 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 UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."