🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims 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, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection 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 act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, 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 target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."