🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled 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 accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices 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 supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date 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 violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."