🔗 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 stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals 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 Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."