Bahrain to Battle UK Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity from Surveillance Allegations
The Gulf state of Bahrain will present its case before the UK's highest court, arguing that it enjoys immunity from surveillance claims related to the alleged hacking of two dissident politicians' computers while they were living in London. The decision is a significant step for Bahrain as it seeks to protect its reputation and avoid accountability for human rights abuses.
The high-stakes hearing at the Supreme Court will focus on whether Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed, who claim that their laptops were infected with malicious surveillance software, have a right to seek damages. The men allege that the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher software to infiltrate their computers, causing them psychological harm.
Bahrain has already lost its sovereign immunity claim at both the High Court and Court of Appeal levels, making this Supreme Court hearing crucial in determining the country's accountability for its alleged actions. If Bahrain prevails, the ruling would have far-reaching implications for authoritarian countries using digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.
The case centers on Section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978, which states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission happening in the UK. The court's decision will also provide clarity for other spyware claims being brought on behalf of clients by the international team at Leigh Day.
The alleged hacking occurred in September 2011 when Dr Shehabi and Mohammed were living in London. They believe that their laptops were infected with malicious software, directed, authorized, or caused by the Bahraini government or its agents. The men claim to have suffered devastating psychological harm as a result of this alleged hacking.
Leigh Day lawyers argue that FinFisher software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, and more. The court has already ruled that the remote manipulation of computers located in the UK constitutes an act within the UK's territorial sovereignty.
The Supreme Court hearing is a significant step forward for Dr Shehabi and Mohammed, who have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked due to their alleged actions against the government. Their lawyers claim that this case raises fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society.
The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing will determine whether Bahrain is held accountable for its alleged actions and whether Dr Shehabi and Mohammed can seek damages. The stakes are high, as this ruling would have a significant impact on the global human rights landscape and set a precedent for authoritarian countries using digital spyware to target dissidents living in the UK.
The Gulf state of Bahrain will present its case before the UK's highest court, arguing that it enjoys immunity from surveillance claims related to the alleged hacking of two dissident politicians' computers while they were living in London. The decision is a significant step for Bahrain as it seeks to protect its reputation and avoid accountability for human rights abuses.
The high-stakes hearing at the Supreme Court will focus on whether Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed, who claim that their laptops were infected with malicious surveillance software, have a right to seek damages. The men allege that the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher software to infiltrate their computers, causing them psychological harm.
Bahrain has already lost its sovereign immunity claim at both the High Court and Court of Appeal levels, making this Supreme Court hearing crucial in determining the country's accountability for its alleged actions. If Bahrain prevails, the ruling would have far-reaching implications for authoritarian countries using digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.
The case centers on Section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978, which states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission happening in the UK. The court's decision will also provide clarity for other spyware claims being brought on behalf of clients by the international team at Leigh Day.
The alleged hacking occurred in September 2011 when Dr Shehabi and Mohammed were living in London. They believe that their laptops were infected with malicious software, directed, authorized, or caused by the Bahraini government or its agents. The men claim to have suffered devastating psychological harm as a result of this alleged hacking.
Leigh Day lawyers argue that FinFisher software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, and more. The court has already ruled that the remote manipulation of computers located in the UK constitutes an act within the UK's territorial sovereignty.
The Supreme Court hearing is a significant step forward for Dr Shehabi and Mohammed, who have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked due to their alleged actions against the government. Their lawyers claim that this case raises fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society.
The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing will determine whether Bahrain is held accountable for its alleged actions and whether Dr Shehabi and Mohammed can seek damages. The stakes are high, as this ruling would have a significant impact on the global human rights landscape and set a precedent for authoritarian countries using digital spyware to target dissidents living in the UK.