🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling 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 immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction 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 non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

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

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use 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 clarity on these matters."