Bahrain to Argue at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

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

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."