🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."