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

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

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 psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported 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 country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."