🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility 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 friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."