🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. 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.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."