🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced 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 sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording 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 United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if some acts take place overseas. 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 noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."