🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, although certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."