🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. 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 held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."