Bahrain to Argue at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men 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 allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, 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 balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially 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 permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."