🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."