🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware 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 appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers 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'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."