The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Claims
Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.
Court Proceedings Context
Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.
Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.
Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing
The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.
Claims and Evidence
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.
Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.
The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.
Software Capabilities
Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."
Judicial Analysis
The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. 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 resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.
Bahrain's Stance
The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."
Claimants' Comments
Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."
Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."
"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."
Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.
Legal Perspective
A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."
