🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue 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 country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially 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 hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."