🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

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

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although some acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."