🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."