🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act 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 ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion 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 repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions 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 waited a long time for clarity on these issues."