🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states 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 British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."