🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing 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 specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

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

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left 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 endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially 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 use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."