🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking 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, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

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 legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."