🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if 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 act in the UK, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers 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 co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility 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 allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."