🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."