The Gulf nation to Argue at UK Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in 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 claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."