🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

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

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."