🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by 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 affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."