🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages 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 Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims 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 pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. 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 held accountable for destroying 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 nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."