🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

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

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined 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 dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware 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, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."