🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if 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 personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."