🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers 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 appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked 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 permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."