🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body 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 Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."