Bahrain to Present Case at British Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Claims

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

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 highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly 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 allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."