🔗 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 deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, 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 impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."