🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right 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 Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."