🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged 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 dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied 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 pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."