The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Allegations

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 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 took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction 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 sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."