Bahrain to Present Case at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Allegations
Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.
Court Proceedings Context
The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.
Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.
Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing
The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.
Allegations and Evidence
Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing 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 grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.
Article 5 of the act states 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 offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.
Technical Details
Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."
Legal Interpretation
The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.
A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.
Defense Position
The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."
Claimants' Comments
Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."
Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests 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 computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."
"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."
Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.
Attorney Commentary
A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."
