🔗 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 surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, 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 national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – 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 permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."