🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced 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 brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."