🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture 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 computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."