🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege 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 appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment 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."