🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect 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, although certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."