Bahrain to Present Case at UK Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured 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 allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."