🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

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

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "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 many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."