The Gulf nation to Argue at UK Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Claims

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting 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 compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking 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 action in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "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 devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."