🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

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 emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide 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 resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state 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 "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, 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 founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left 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 reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."