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

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

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

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 delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust 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 use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."