🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

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

Section 5 of the legislation 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 UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if some acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues 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."