🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain acts occur 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 denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message 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 facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility 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 waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."