🔗 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 computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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 collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

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 reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."