🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

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

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."