🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set 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 stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers 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 legislation states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, 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 some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. 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 hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."