🔗 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 stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action 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 foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact 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 permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."