Bahrain to Present Case at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Allegations
The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.
Legal Battle Context
The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.
If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.
Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing
The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.
Allegations and Proof
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.
Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.
The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.
Technical Details
Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound 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 United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.
A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.
Defense Position
The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."
Plaintiffs' Statements
Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."
Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."
"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."
The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.
Attorney Commentary
A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."
