🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, 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 infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."