🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. 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 immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

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

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

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 use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."