🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right 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 Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party 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 clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."