🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men 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 Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party 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 computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."