🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country 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 issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

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

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."