🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."