🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in 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 allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."