The Gulf nation to Argue at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims
The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.
Court Proceedings Context
The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.
If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.
Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing
The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.
Claims and Proof
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.
Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.
The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.
Software Capabilities
Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."
Judicial Analysis
The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.
A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.
Bahrain's Stance
The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."
Plaintiffs' Statements
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 sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."
Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced 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 loved ones."
"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."
The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.
Attorney Commentary
A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise 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 advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."
