🔗 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 spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden 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, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence 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 use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."