🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, 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 compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics 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 arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."