🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion 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 acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."