🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

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

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."