🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers 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 experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."