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

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."