🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented 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 overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."