🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide 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 act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly 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 allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."