🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust 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 advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."