🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim 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 London.

Court Proceedings Context

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings 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 violating their personal affairs and equipment."

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

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."