🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue 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 stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing 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 electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October 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 state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, 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 devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."