🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim 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.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals 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 allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK 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 overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "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 profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."