🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, 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."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

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 plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."