🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation 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 infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 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 took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

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

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings 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 repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."