🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

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.

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

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation 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 United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility 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 opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."