🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect 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 action in the UK, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

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

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal 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 experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."