🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices 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 allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states 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 provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."