🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence 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 hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."