The Gulf nation to Argue at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Claims

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection 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 took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking 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 action in the UK, even if certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party 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 computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."