🔗 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 surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."