🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate 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 Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence 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 UK, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating 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 opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "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 compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially 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 allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."