Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.
Legal Battle Background
The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.
Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.
Central Issue of Legal Proceedings
The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.
Allegations and Evidence
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.
Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.
The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.
Software Capabilities
Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."
Judicial Analysis
The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.
A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.
Bahrain's Stance
The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."
Claimants' Comments
Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."
Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."
"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."
Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.
Attorney Commentary
A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."
