🔗 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 installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."