🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."