🔗 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 deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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 addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – especially 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 hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."