🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice 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 revoked.

Legal Perspective

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