🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although some acts 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 denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process 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 device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."