🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

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 nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country 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 surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially 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 allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."