🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

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, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message 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: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise 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 represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."