🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court 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 Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."