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

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-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 sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."