🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

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

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act 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 offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged 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 dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

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