🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."