Bahrain to Present Case at UK Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, 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 court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers 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, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."