The Gulf nation to Argue at British Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country 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 issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence 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 allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."