🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state 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 provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

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

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

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 court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."