🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at 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 – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."