🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set 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 residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio 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 UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, although some activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics 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: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."