🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence 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 supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

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

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."