🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."