🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence 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 matter for the country's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state 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 clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, 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, 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 foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods 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 highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."