🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."