🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."