The Gulf nation to Present Case at British Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Allegations
Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.
Court Proceedings Context
The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.
Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.
Key Focus of Legal Proceedings
The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing 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 computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.
Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.
The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.
Technical Details
Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."
Judicial Analysis
The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.
A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.
Bahrain's Stance
The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."
Claimants' Comments
Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."
Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."
"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."
Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.
Attorney Commentary
A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."
