🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys 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

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction 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 sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."