🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set 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 Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents 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 legal right to seek 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 Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."