🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. 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 cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."