🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim 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 the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants 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."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially 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 hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."