🔗 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 deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities 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 high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility 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 clarity on these matters."