🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

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 emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

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 delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."