🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, 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 act in the UK, even if some activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion 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 private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."