🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled 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 expose 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."