🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised 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 permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."