🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle 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 matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, 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.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments 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 British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."