Bahrain to Present Case at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing 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 German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised 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'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."