🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware 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 high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture 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 electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked 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 permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."