The Gulf nation to Argue at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Claims
Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.
Court Proceedings Background
The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.
If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.
Key Focus of Legal Proceedings
The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.
Allegations and Proof
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, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.
Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.
The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.
Software Capabilities
Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."
Judicial Analysis
The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.
A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.
Bahrain's Stance
The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged 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 founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."
Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."
"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."
Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.
Legal Perspective
A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."
