🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court 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 Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims 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 Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."