🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, 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 compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims 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 additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices 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 legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."