🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living 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 sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date 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 intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."