🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing 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 legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located 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 United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially 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 diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."