🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states 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."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."