🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

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

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "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 devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."