🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices 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 high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue 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 opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims 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 residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

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 "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."