🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case 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 employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased 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 target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

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

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."