🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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 addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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 occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, 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 spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."