🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

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

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act 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 "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."