🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection 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 other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised 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 held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."