🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence 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 highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility 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 resolution on these matters."