🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus 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 immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although 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 psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."