Bahrain to Argue at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Allegations
Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.
Court Proceedings Context
The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.
Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.
Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing
The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.
Claims and Proof
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.
Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.
The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.
Technical Details
Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."
Judicial Analysis
The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.
A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.
Bahrain's Stance
The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."
Claimants' Comments
Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target 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 nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."
"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."
The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.
Attorney Commentary
A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."