UK High Court Enters Summary Judgment Against Saudi Arabia in Pegasus Spyware Case
London judge finds the kingdom liable for hacking and assault on a Saudi dissident, awarding over £3 million in damages
The High Court in London has entered summary judgment against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in a civil claim brought by a London-based Saudi dissident, finding that the state authorised the hacking of his mobile phones with Pegasus spyware and orchestrated a physical assault on him in the United Kingdom.
The judgment, handed down on 26 January by Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini, concluded that Saudi Arabia had ‘‘no real prospect’’ of successfully defending the claims and had made a deliberate decision not to engage with the proceedings.
The claimant, Ghanem Al-Masarir, is a satirist and human rights activist who has lived in the UK since 2003. He alleged that in 2018 his iPhones were covertly infected with Pegasus, a sophisticated mobile spyware developed by the NSO Group and used by governments to access private communications, location and sensory data.
Expert forensic evidence presented in court linked the malicious activity to infrastructure used exclusively by a Pegasus operator connected with Saudi interests.
The litigation also included an allegation that Al-Masarir was assaulted later in 2018 in central London by men acting on behalf of or in concert with Saudi state interests.
In its summary judgment, the court found the combined campaign of surveillance, threats and violence amounted to harassment and constituted ‘‘exceptionally grave invasions of his privacy’’ and wrongful conduct, for which damages should be awarded.
Saudi Arabia had initially challenged the court’s jurisdiction on the grounds of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, but that argument was rejected by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in earlier hearings.
After an appeal was dismissed, the Saudi government withdrew from active participation in the case and did not file a formal defence, prompting the claimant to seek summary judgment.
The court determined that judgment ‘on the merits’ was appropriate as there was overwhelming evidence and no defence.
Mr Justice Saini awarded damages totalling just over £3 million, comprising compensation for psychiatric injury, past and future lost earnings and other heads of loss.
The judge noted that the hacking and assault had resulted in severe psychological harm, including depression and an inability to work, effectively ending Al-Masarir’s professional activities.
The award reflects the court’s assessment of the impact of the spyware campaign and associated conduct on the claimant’s life and livelihood.
The judgment, handed down on 26 January by Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini, concluded that Saudi Arabia had ‘‘no real prospect’’ of successfully defending the claims and had made a deliberate decision not to engage with the proceedings.
The claimant, Ghanem Al-Masarir, is a satirist and human rights activist who has lived in the UK since 2003. He alleged that in 2018 his iPhones were covertly infected with Pegasus, a sophisticated mobile spyware developed by the NSO Group and used by governments to access private communications, location and sensory data.
Expert forensic evidence presented in court linked the malicious activity to infrastructure used exclusively by a Pegasus operator connected with Saudi interests.
The litigation also included an allegation that Al-Masarir was assaulted later in 2018 in central London by men acting on behalf of or in concert with Saudi state interests.
In its summary judgment, the court found the combined campaign of surveillance, threats and violence amounted to harassment and constituted ‘‘exceptionally grave invasions of his privacy’’ and wrongful conduct, for which damages should be awarded.
Saudi Arabia had initially challenged the court’s jurisdiction on the grounds of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, but that argument was rejected by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in earlier hearings.
After an appeal was dismissed, the Saudi government withdrew from active participation in the case and did not file a formal defence, prompting the claimant to seek summary judgment.
The court determined that judgment ‘on the merits’ was appropriate as there was overwhelming evidence and no defence.
Mr Justice Saini awarded damages totalling just over £3 million, comprising compensation for psychiatric injury, past and future lost earnings and other heads of loss.
The judge noted that the hacking and assault had resulted in severe psychological harm, including depression and an inability to work, effectively ending Al-Masarir’s professional activities.
The award reflects the court’s assessment of the impact of the spyware campaign and associated conduct on the claimant’s life and livelihood.