🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."