🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

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

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."