The Gulf nation to Argue at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages 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 surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased 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 pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced 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 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 lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."