🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."