🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."