Bahrain to Present Case at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Proof

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, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-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 cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence 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 state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."