🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus 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 allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."