The Gulf nation to Argue at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."