🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

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 country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

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

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."