🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording 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 computer located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of 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 Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."