🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing 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 seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

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 psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."