🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

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

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying 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 Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."