🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

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

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics 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 reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."