🔗 Share this article

Bahrain 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 stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims 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, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-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 hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message 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 experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured 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."

"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 transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."