The Gulf nation to Present Case at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court 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

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Evidence

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

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, 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 court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially 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 diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."