🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys 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

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially 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 use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."