🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing 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 claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met 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."

Plaintiffs' Statements

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 court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – 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 permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings 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 represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."