The Gulf nation to Argue at British Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

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

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."