The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims
Bahrain is set to argue 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.
Court Proceedings Background
The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.
Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.
Key Focus of Legal Proceedings
The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.
Claims and Evidence
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.
Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.
The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.
Technical Details
Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."
Legal Interpretation
The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.
A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.
Defense Position
The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."
Claimants' Comments
Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."
Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured 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 brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."
Both men have had their nationality revoked.
Legal Perspective
A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."
