🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states 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 provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."