🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

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

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."