🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers 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 proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."