🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies 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 decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, 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 preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence 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 use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."