🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

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, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."