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

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

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

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."