🔗 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 installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October 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 protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer 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 suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact 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 permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."