🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

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

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."