🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set 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 London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men 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 claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems 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 issues."