The Gulf nation to Argue at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."