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

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

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

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

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date 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, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."