🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government 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 residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

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 court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices 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 outcome so far 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 various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled 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 responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying 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 revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."