🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track 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 focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, 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 peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."