🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction 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 sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."