🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue 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 addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

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

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."