Bahrain to Argue at UK Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims
Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.
Legal Battle Context
Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.
Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.
Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing
The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.
Allegations and Proof
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.
Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.
The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.
Technical Details
Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."
Legal Interpretation
The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.
A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although some activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.
Bahrain's Stance
The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."
Claimants' Comments
Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "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 overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."
Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly 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 hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."
The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.
Legal Perspective
A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."
