The Gulf nation to Argue at UK Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments 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 Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, 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 overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice 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 Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."