🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

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

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty 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 some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility 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 legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced 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 brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."