🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented 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 foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."