🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. 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 claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK 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 United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect 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 hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."