🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."