Bahrain to Argue at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims
Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.
Legal Battle Background
The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim 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 international reputation.
If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.
Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing
The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.
Claims and Evidence
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.
Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.
The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.
Technical Details
Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."
Legal Interpretation
The appellate court 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 occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.
A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.
Defense Position
The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."
Claimants' Comments
Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."
Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."
"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."
Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.
Legal Perspective
A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."
