The Gulf nation to Argue at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Claims

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially 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 allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."