🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."