🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process 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 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."