🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling 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 met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."