The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Allegations

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling 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 Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents 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 located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments 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."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."