🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue 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 the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

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

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

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, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."