🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in 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 allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – 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 permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."