🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences 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, 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 compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

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

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

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

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."