🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining 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 living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."