🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs 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 co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

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

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."