🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware 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 provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised 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 advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."