🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence 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 certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "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 overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."