🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal 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 nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."