🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

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, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact 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 allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use 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 matters."