🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims 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 residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."