🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – 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 permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."