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

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially 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 allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."