The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Highest Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."