The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Highest Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims
Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.
Court Proceedings Background
The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.
Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.
Central Issue of Legal Proceedings
The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.
Allegations and Proof
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.
Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.
The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.
Software Capabilities
Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."
Judicial Analysis
The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.
A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.
Bahrain's Stance
The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."
Plaintiffs' Statements
Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."
Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."
"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."
Both men have had their nationality revoked.
Attorney Commentary
A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."
