🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if 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 psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."