🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported 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 country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling 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 vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."