🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim 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 stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although some activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware 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 outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."