🔗 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 computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."