🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

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

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation 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 German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."