🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."