🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue 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 stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" 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 activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey 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 effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."