🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities 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 supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."