🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate 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.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling 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 gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording 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 act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."