🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."