🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government 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 the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right 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 Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "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 foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."