🔗 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 devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling 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 protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."