🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."