🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation 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 United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound 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 United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "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 overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions 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 represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."