🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action 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 foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although some activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, 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."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far 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 various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled 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 duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."