🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers 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 court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group 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 electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."