🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states 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 spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

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

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden 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 co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings 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 equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly 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 hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."