🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. 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 brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."