🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although some acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."