Bahrain to Argue at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high 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 decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, although certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."