🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted 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 certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust 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 diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."