🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."