🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal 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."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."