🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies 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 UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing 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 experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust 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 hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."