The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Claims

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 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 took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place overseas. 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 denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, 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 preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – 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 permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."