🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged 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, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."