🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially 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 use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."