Bahrain to Argue at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Allegations

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio 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 represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"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 UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."