Why the Saudi Government Was Held Liable in a UK Court
A Legal Situation in the Public Eye
Recently, a case in the UK High Court attracted public attention after a Saudi dissident (a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state) successfully brought a legal claim against the Saudi government. News reports and public discussion raised questions about how UK law deals with serious incidents linked to a foreign state and what the courts are allowed to do when diplomatic protection is involved. For many people, this was confusing, as foreign governments are often seen as being protected from legal action. In reality, the law is more complex, and this case helped to clarify how those rules work.
What Rules Normally Protect Foreign States
Foreign states are usually protected from being sued in UK courts under the principle of state immunity. This rule exists to support peaceful relations between countries and to prevent courts from interfering in international diplomacy. The United Kingdom recognises this protection as part of its own law. However, state immunity does not apply in every situation, and courts must consider the nature of the acts being complained of before deciding whether protection applies.
How the Case Came Before the Court
The claim was brought by Ghanem al-Masarir, a Saudi political dissident living in the United Kingdom. He argued that the Saudi state was responsible for hacking his mobile phone using Pegasus spyware and for physical attacks linked to efforts to silence him because of his political views. He claimed that these acts took place while he was in the UK and caused him serious harm.
How Surveillance Became a Legal Issue
Pegasus spyware is a form of surveillance technology that allows full access to a person’s mobile phone without their knowledge. Mr al-Masarir argued that the use of this spyware went beyond lawful state activity and amounted to a serious breach of his rights. The court had to consider whether such conduct could ever be protected by state immunity.
Why the Court Rejected State Immunity
The High Court decided that state immunity did not apply in this case. The judge found that hacking a private individual’s phone and carrying out physical attacks could not be described as lawful acts of a state. The court also made clear that serious human-rights violations cannot be protected simply because a foreign government is involved.
The Court’s Decision and Damages Award
After considering the evidence, the High Court ruled in favour of Mr al-Masarir and awarded him £3 million in damages. The court accepted that he had suffered significant harm and that the Saudi state was legally responsible for what had happened to him.
Why the Police and Criminal Law Were Not Used
Some members of the public questioned why the case was not dealt with through criminal proceedings. However, diplomatic protections often limit the ability of UK authorities to bring criminal charges against foreign state actors. In this situation, a civil claim was the most effective legal route available to achieve accountability.
Why This Case Feels Important to Many People
For many people, this case felt significant because it challenged the idea that foreign governments are always beyond the reach of UK law. It showed that legal protection has limits and that courts can intervene where serious harm has been caused.
What This Case Could Mean Going Forward
This ruling may encourage greater scrutiny of how foreign states use surveillance technology and how UK courts respond to human-rights claims involving diplomacy. It also highlights the balance the law tries to maintain between international relations and protecting individuals within the UK.