UK Court Awards £3m to YouTuber After Ruling Saudi Arabia Behind Harrods Attack
YouTuber Wins £3m from Saudi Arabia Over Harrods Assault

A British-based YouTuber who was violently assaulted outside the Harrods department store in London has been awarded over £3 million in compensation from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, following a landmark High Court ruling that found the state responsible for orchestrating the attack and conducting extensive cyber surveillance.

Court Finds Saudi State Liable for Assault and Hacking

Ghanem Al-Masarir, a 45-year-old human rights activist and satirical content creator with nearly 350 million video views, successfully sued the Saudi government after suffering significant eye injuries during an unprovoked attack in Knightsbridge in August 2018. The High Court heard that two men followed Mr Al-Masarir from a café, physically assaulted him while shouting accusations of being a "slave to Qatar," and referenced his criticism of the Saudi royal family during the violent incident.

Judgment Reveals Systematic Surveillance Operation

In a comprehensive ruling, Mr Justice Saini granted summary judgment in favour of Mr Al-Masarir after the Saudi Kingdom failed to submit any defence to the claims. The judge determined there was "no realistic prospect" of Saudi Arabia successfully defending against allegations that it authorised both the physical assault and a sophisticated cyber surveillance campaign using Pegasus spyware.

The court heard compelling evidence that Saudi agents had covertly installed malicious software on two of Mr Al-Masarir's iPhones, enabling them to:

  • Access all data stored on and communicated through the devices
  • Track his physical location in real-time
  • Intercept and record telephone conversations
  • Remotely activate the phones' microphones and cameras

Justice Saini described this surveillance as "exceptionally grave invasions of his privacy" that effectively transformed Mr Al-Masarir's smartphones into constant bugging devices transmitting information to a hostile state.

Campaign of Harassment With Catastrophic Consequences

Mr Al-Masarir, who was born in Saudi Arabia but moved to England in 2003 and received asylum in 2018, presented evidence that the discovery of this surveillance had devastating personal consequences. The activist developed severe depression, effectively ending his previously thriving YouTube career, and now rarely leaves his home due to the psychological impact.

In his witness statement, Mr Al-Masarir described the 2018 attack in disturbing detail, noting that one assailant wore a grey suit with what appeared to be surveillance equipment, suggesting a planned operation. Passers-by intervened during the assault, potentially preventing more serious injuries.

Legal Precedent on State Immunity and Free Speech

The judgment establishes significant legal precedents regarding state immunity in cases involving alleged human rights violations on British soil. Justice Saini explicitly rejected any potential defence based on state immunity for either the physical assault or the cyber surveillance activities.

The judge emphasised that Mr Al-Masarir's activities as an online activist supporting human rights in Saudi Arabia represented "a proper exercise of his free speech rights" that could not possibly justify the hacking and surveillance conducted against him.

Substantial Compensation Awarded for Multiple Violations

The total compensation award of £3,025,662 includes more than £2.5 million specifically for the loss of Mr Al-Masarir's YouTube income stream, which the court determined had been effectively destroyed by the psychological consequences of the surveillance and attack.

Justice Saini concluded that proceeding to trial would serve no purpose given Saudi Arabia's failure to participate in the legal process, stating that a trial would simply involve "a rehearsal of all the evidence before me without challenge from the KSA."

The ruling represents a significant victory for activists operating from the UK who face intimidation from foreign states, while raising serious questions about the extent of overseas surveillance operations conducted on British soil against political dissidents and human rights campaigners.