🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed 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 court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input 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 action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."