🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

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

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."