In a recent judgment, the English High Court has permitted an individual to continue to pursue phone hacking claims against a foreign government.
This is a significant decision because it confirms for the first time that individuals have private rights of action in such cases. However, it is also important to understand the limitations of this decision.
The London-based claimant, Ghanem Al-Masarir, is a critic of the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). He commenced proceedings in the High Court, alleging that KSA hacked his iPhones using (the now well-known) Pegasus software. He also alleged that agents of KSA subsequently assaulted him in a street in London.
It is important to emphasise that at this stage the underlying allegations against KSA have not been determined. Instead, relying on the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA), KSA invited the court to find that it has no jurisdiction to hear these claims on the basis of state immunity.
The SIA provides for wholesale immunity from the UK courts’ jurisdiction for foreign states, but this is then subject to a list of specific exceptions. One of those exceptions is in Section 5 of the SIA, which provides that a foreign state does not have immunity in relation to claims for personal injury or damage to tangible property caused by an act or omission in the UK.
The claimant has tailored his case to allege personal injury and damage to the iPhones in an attempt to bring it within the aforementioned Section 5 exception to state immunity.
In his proceedings, the claimant alleges:
- The sending of the malicious text messages,
- The infection of the iPhones with the Pegasus software,
- The surveillance of the Claimant,
- The personal injury arising out of the assault.
Trespass to goods based on the unauthorised interference with his iPhones, which altered their functioning, configuration and hardware.
As a consequence, the claimant is claiming damages for personal injury (and the loss consequential on it) comprised of:
The physical impact on him caused by the alleged assault; and
- Psychiatric injury arising out of:
- Learning that text messages by which the “spyware” was installed were sent by or on behalf of KSA,
- Learning that he had been subject to surveillance, and
- The attack on him in London.
The judge allowed the claimant’s case to proceed, rejecting KSA's arguments.
Two aspects of this decision are particularly important:
This decision is very important because it opens the door to private actions against foreign states in relation to hacking of individuals in the UK. However, it also has its limitations. The claimant had to focus his claims on damage to property or personal injury by way of psychological harm. That may not be easy to prove in this or other cases. In other cases, simply alleging misuse of private information, breach of confidence and / or breaches of data protection laws will not be enough as they do not fit into the listed exceptions to state immunity.
Given its importance, we suspect that this case will be appealed to the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, however, the English court has signalled that it will hear cases involving foreign states acting in this way, subjecting those states to a potentially embarrassing level of scrutiny at the very least. Link to the full judgment here.
If you require further information about anything covered in this briefing, please contact Ian De Freitas , Athalie Matthews.
This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.