🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced 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 held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology 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."