🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place overseas. The court 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 rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices 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 legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust 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 diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."