🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right 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 claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged 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 opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."