🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies 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 ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices 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 proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far 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 violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left 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 expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."