🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

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 psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings 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 violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."