Bahrain to Argue at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Claims

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state 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 ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."