The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating 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 country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems 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."