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

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

Legal Battle Context

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

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

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."