Bahrain to Present Case at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

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

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased 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 private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."