🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

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

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case 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 resolution on these issues."