🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."