Decision of the Complaints Committee 01506-19 Sultan bin
Muhammad Al Qasimi and the Al Qasimi family v thesun.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Sultan bin Muhammad Al Qasimi and the Al Qasimi family
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk
breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) in an article headlined “A
FATHER’S GRIEF Emir of Sharjah stands over his son Prince Khalid Al Qasimi’s
body at royal funeral after ‘sex and drugs orgy’ death in London” published on
3 July 2019, and in an article headlined “PRINCE DIES Who was fashion designer
Khalid al Qasimi and what was his cause of death?”, also published on 3 July
2019.
2. The first article reported on the funeral of Sheikh
Khalid bin Sultan Al Qasimi, which had taken place that day. It said that he
had died in a “’drug-fuelled orgy’” and quoted a source who had said that “like
many young Arab men, Sheikh Khalid enjoyed the freedoms he had in London”, and
a source who had said that staff at the prince’s fashion label had been
“ordered to keep quiet” following his death. The piece stated that detectives
were treating his death as “unexplained” and had made no arrests. It said that
the family owned a property in Sussex where the prince’s brother had been found
dead from a heroin overdose in 1999. This article was illustrated with images
and videos of the funeral ceremony, including one which showed the prince’s
covered body as his father, amongst other mourners, stood by with his head
bowed; his father’s face was circled in red to identify him as the prince’s
father.
3. The second article reported that the son of the ruler of
Sharjah had died in London on 1 July 2019. It included biographical
information, such as the fact he had moved to the UK at the age of nine, and
had studied in London before launching his fashion label. The piece said that
staff at his fashion label had discovered his body, but it had not yet “been
revealed how he died”. It said that police were said to have found “a quantity
of Class A drugs” at his address, and quoted a source who had said that “there
had apparently been a party where some guests were taking drugs and having
sex”, that it was “suspected that Sheikh Khalid may have died suddenly as a
result of taking drugs”, and “an internal probe has been ordered and staff have
been ordered to keep quiet”. The piece also included a section about the death
of the prince’s brother of a heroin overdose in 1999 with a detailed
description of the circumstances in which his body had been found.
4. The complainants said that the publication’s coverage of
the death of Prince Khalid and the timing of its articles had been insensitive
in breach of Clause 4. They said that the reporting was flippant and
gratuitous; it represented a clear intrusion into their grief and a failure to
act with sympathy when reporting on a tragic event. While an attempt had been
made to contact the UAE Embassy, no attempt had been made to contact the family
before the articles were published.
5. The complainants expressed concern that the articles had
included excessive speculation on the cause of the prince’s death – including
in the headlines. This was unnecessary and insensitive given that nothing had
been confirmed by the police or the coroner. The publication had also presented
this speculation in a sensationalist manner, which had demeaned the prince’s
death. The complainants said that the first article, published the day of the
prince’s funeral, had insensitively reported that Prince Khalid had died “in a
drug-fuelled orgy”, “as a result of taking drugs” and that Class A drugs had
been found at the scene. They were also concerned that it had reported
information from a source that staff at the prince’s fashion label had been
“ordered to keep quiet”.
6. The complainants expressed concern that the first article
had included images and video taken during the funeral, which featured the
prince’s body being carried and his grieving father. This material appeared
immediately below the sensationalised headline referring to a “’sex and drugs
orgy’ death”. In addition, the image of the Prince’s father had been circled,
which the complainants said had emphasised his grieving expression. They said
that this represented a total failure to handle publication sensitively.
7. The complainants were concerned that the second article
had repeated the same information contained in the first article. In addition,
it had made an insensitive reference to the death of the prince’s brother, who
had died of a heroin overdose. This reference had compounded and deepened the
hurt and distress suffered by the family.
8. The complainants said that their concerns were framed in
the context of other coverage of the prince’s death, which had been published
by other titles owned by the same publishing group as thesun.co.uk, News Group
Newspapers Ltd (NGN).
9. The publication expressed its condolences to the
complainants for their tragic loss, and it acknowledged that media coverage of
a death can sometimes be unwelcome. It nevertheless denied that its coverage
had been insensitive in breach of the Code.
10. The publication said that it was entitled to report the
news of a death and there was a public interest in doing so – the family had
not learned of the prince’s death through its reporting. It did not accept that
mentioning drugs and sex in the context of a death had represented a failure to
handle publication sensitively.
11. The publication said that one of its highly experienced
journalists had been informed by a reliable, confidential source that a party
had been held at the prince’s apartment the night before his death at which the
guests and the host had been drinking, taking drugs and having sex, and that
Class A drugs had been found. The publication noted that the accuracy of this
information had not been questioned, and the reporter had heard subsequently
from additional sources that it was correct. It argued that the fact that there
had not yet been a finding by a coroner was irrelevant.
12. The publication said that it had attempted to contact
the complainants before publication: a reporter had contacted the United Arab
Emirates Embassy in London and had repeatedly given them an opportunity to
comment. No response was received. In addition, the reporter had contacted the
police, and he was issued with a statement confirming that they had been called
by the ambulance service to the death of a man.
13. The publication said that its articles had concerned the
fact of the death; the fact of the funeral; and an explanation of who Prince
Khalid was. The articles had not gone into detail about the alleged
circumstances of Prince Khalid’s death. They had simply reported claims that he
had died at a sex and drugs party; no further information had been given about,
for example, the details of his sex life, his sexual preferences or the types
of drugs that had been found in the flat. It also considered that it was
entirely legitimate to note in the articles that the prince’s brother had died
of a drugs overdose in 1999.
14. The publication did not consider that the inclusion of
the photographs and video of the funeral ceremony was insensitive as the
material had been authorised and distributed to the media for the purposes of
publication. It noted that it had come from the Sharjah Media Office and had
been issued by the Emirates News Agency. In addition, it had been posted on the
Instagram page of the Media Office of the ruler of Sharjah. The publication
said that it had been appropriate for it to circle the face of the prince’s
father in one of the images so as to identify him from the others in the
photograph. It did not consider that this represented a breach of Clause 4.
Relevant Code Provisions
15. Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and
approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled
sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings.
Findings of the Committee on Procedural Points
16. The complainants had directed their complaint at News
Group Newspapers Ltd (NGN), the publisher of thesun.co.uk, as well as The Sun,
about which the complainants had also submitted a complaint. The Committee
noted that IPSO considers complaints against individual publications, rather
than against publishing groups. This is because IPSO operates on the principle
of editorial responsibility: publications make separate and distinct editorial
decisions and therefore one publication with its own editor cannot be held
responsible for what is published by another publication in the same group.
Findings of the Committee
17. The Committee first wished to express its condolences to
the complainants for their loss.
18. The complainants had found the reporting process
insensitive, in particular the timing of the coverage and the fact that the
publication had not made direct contact with the family in advance. While the
Committee understood that the complainants had found the coverage distressing
to read, the fact of someone’s death is not private, and there is a public
interest in reporting on a death.
Journalists have a right to report the fact of a person’s death, even if
surviving family members would prefer for there to be no reporting. The
Committee noted that in this case, the deceased was a high-profile fashion
designer and a member of a royal family. It was not insensitive in breach of
the Code for the publication to have published the articles the day of Prince
Khalid’s funeral.
19. While the Committee acknowledged that the complainants
would have appreciated being notified before the articles were published, the
Code does not require that publications contact families in advance of
publishing reports of a death in order to be sensitive; rather, it states that
any such inquiries, if made, should be handled sensitively. Nonetheless, the
Committee welcomed the fact that the publication had attempted to contact the
family through the United Arab Emirates Embassy in London.
20. The complainants had also expressed serious concern
regarding the content of the articles and the presentation of the stories. In
particular, they had objected to the reporting of “unconfirmed speculation” on
the circumstances in which the prince had died, which they considered to be
excessive and demeaning. However, the publication had reported information
provided by confidential sources about the circumstances in which the prince
had died. While it had reported – including in a headline – that “sex”, “drugs”
and an “orgy” had allegedly been involved, it had taken steps to limit the
level of detail published, avoiding excessive and gratuitous detail. The Code
does not require that publications sanitise the circumstances of a death, and
it was not insensitive in breach of the Code for the publication to have
reported this information.
21. The first article had included a brief reference to the
death of Prince Khalid’s brother, and the second article had included more
detailed information on the circumstances in which he had reportedly died.
While the Committee acknowledged that this had been distressing for the
complainants to read, this was factual information that was already in the
public domain and was relevant in the context of the death of Prince Khalid.
Publishing this information did not breach the Code.
22. The first article had featured video and images of
Prince Khalid’s funeral. The complainants objected to their publication, and in
particular the publication of photographs in which his father, one of the
complainants, was circled. Funerals, whatever their nature, are highly
sensitive occasions, and the Committee acknowledged the family’s distress. It
was relevant, however, that the material under complaint had previously been
placed in the public domain with the family’s consent, and that it showed a
televised state funeral of a prominent member of the Sharjah royal family,
rather than a private occasion. It was not insensitive for the newspaper to
have republished the broadcast footage and taken still images from it to
illustrate its coverage. Furthermore, it was not insensitive for the newspaper
to have circled the prince’s father’s face in order to identify him from the
others in the photograph. This did not represent a failure to handle
publication with sensitivity.
Conclusion
23. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
24. N/A.
Date complaint received: 23/07/2019
Date complaint concluded: 11/02/2020