Decision of the Complaints Committee 05599-19 Sultan bin
Muhammad Al Qasimi and the Al Qasimi family v Daily Mail
Summary of Complaint
1. Sultan bin Muhammad Al Qasimi and the Al Qasimi family
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail
breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Did sheikh’s son die after drugs party at £8m
flat?, published on 4 July 2019, and in an article headlined “The House of Grief”,
published on 10 July 2019.
2. The first article reported that Sheikh Khalid bin Sultan
Al Qasimi had been found dead at his London address “amid reports of a
drug-fuelled party”. It explained that he was the son of Sheikh Sultan bin
Muhammad Al Qasimi, who ruled Sharjah in the UAE, and whose elder son had died
of a heroin overdose in 1999. The article reported that the funeral had taken
place in the UAE “yesterday” where three days of mourning were under way. It
said that police had launched an investigation and that detectives were
treating the death as “unexplained”, were waiting for the results of toxicology
tests, and had refused to say whether drugs had been found at his property. The
article included quotes which it said were from people who had worked with the
prince at his fashion label; one person was reported to have said that he could
“become very unpredictable and we always knew to stay away from him after one
of his famous parties”, and another that “he always treated his female staff
with respect”. The article was illustrated with an image of the funeral
ceremony which showed the prince’s father, amongst other mourners, standing
over his body while praying; the newspaper had circled his face in red in order
to identify him to readers as the prince’s father. This article did not appear
online.
3. The second article reported that Sheikh Sultan bin
Muhammad Al Qasimi had lost two sons: it reported that Prince Khalid had died
recently “amid claims that ‘a drug fuelled orgy’ had taken place in the hours
before [he] died”, and that Prince Mohammed had “taken a fatal heroin overdose”
in 1999. It said that the death of Prince Khalid had “shone a light both on his
lifestyle and the past tragedies that have dogged a family seemingly born with
every advantage in life”. It said that police were investigating his death amid
reports that Class A substances had been found at his property. It said that it
had also been alleged that he had a “reputation for partying hard, surrounding
himself with beautiful women and prostitutes, as well as having a penchant for
illegal drugs that boosted his sexual performance”. It said that the results of
toxicology tests may take two months to come back. The article said that his
father had lost his only other son 20 years ago and it gave a detailed
description of the circumstances in which his body had been found, which had
been heard at the inquest.
4. The second article was published in substantially the
same terms online with the headline “House of grief: How a rich Emirati ruler
sent two of his sons to Britain with every privilege only for them to end up
dead 20 years apart amid rumours they had spiralled into a life of drug-fuelled
excess”. It was published online on 9 July 2019.
5. The complainants said that the newspaper’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.
6. The complainants said that both articles had been
published despite the fact that a notice had been circulated, prior to
publication on 3 July, which had asked news outlets to comply with Clause 4 of
the Code and to respect the family’s privacy. No attempt had been made to
contact the family before the articles were published.
7. The complainants expressed concern that the articles had
included excessive speculation on the cause of the prince’s death. This was
unnecessary and insensitive given that nothing had been confirmed by the police
or the coroner. They said that the newspaper had also presented this
speculation in a sensationalist manner, which had demeaned the prince’s death.
For example, it had referred to a “drug-orgy death”; “drug-fuelled orgy”; said
that the prince had “spiralled into a life of drug-fuelled excess”; and that
“he would spend the weekend partying at his Knightsbridge penthouse with
high-class prostitutes, before coming into work as an ‘erratic monster’”.
8. The complainants were also concerned that in this
context, the newspaper had referred to the death of the prince’s brother from a
heroin overdose; had referred to his brother’s drinking, reporting that this
would have made his father “furious”; and had detailed the circumstances in
which his brother’s body had been found. These references had compounded and
deepened their hurt and distress.
9. The complainants also said that the published image of
the funeral ceremony, which had shown the covered body of the prince and his
father grieving, was exceedingly insensitive. They noted in particular that the
newspaper had circled the father’s face, which had emphasised his pained
expression.
10. 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 the Daily Mail,
Associated News Limited (ANL).
11. The newspaper expressed its deepest sympathies to the
complainants for their loss, and said that it had not been its intention to
contribute to their distress. It nevertheless denied that its coverage had been
insensitive in breach of the Code.
12. The newspaper noted that Prince Khalid was a prominent
individual and so it considered that it was expected that his death would
attract press attention: he was the head of a fashion brand, and his royal
status was such that his funeral had been broadcast on television. It said that
the tone of its coverage had been respectful, no gratuitous information had
been included, and the tragic events had not been made light of. In the context
of an unexplained sudden death – even soon after the event – it was inevitable
that any article would include speculative information on how the subject may
have died. It considered that both articles had only included a brief reference
to speculative details.
13. The newspaper said that the first article was a news
piece which had merely provided details about Prince Khalid’s family and his
professional background, as well as reporting on the status of the
investigation into his death. It acknowledged that the article had referred to
a “drug-fuelled party”, but noted that it had also made clear that reports of
drug use were unconfirmed. It had said that the police were still “awaiting the
results of toxicology tests” and had “refused to say whether drugs had been
involved”. The headline was also sensitive: it had asked whether Prince Khalid
had died after a “drugs party”.
14. The newspaper said that the second article had explored
the experiences of both brothers. It considered that the piece had also been sensitively
written and noted that it opened with four paragraphs about the 20,000 mourners
who had attended Prince Khalid’s funeral; it said that only two paragraphs had
mentioned the speculation from previous reports.
15. The newspaper said that a complaint could not be made
about the ANL publishing group as each title within the group had its own
editor and journalists.
Relevant Code Provisions
16. 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 Point
17. The complainants had directed their complaint at
Associated News Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail, as well as the
Metro and Mail Online, about which the complainants had also submitted
complaints. 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
18. The Committee first wished to express its condolences to
the complainants for their loss.
19. The complainants had found the reporting process
insensitive, in particular the timing of the coverage and the fact that the
newspaper had not made direct contact with the family in advance of
publication. While the Committee understood that the complainants had found the
newspaper’s coverage distressing to read, and their concern that the first
article was published the day after Prince Khalid’s funeral, the fact of
someone’s death is not private, and there is a public interest in reporting on
a death. The Committee noted that in
this case, the deceased was a high-profile fashion designer and a member of a
royal family. 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. It
was not insensitive in breach of the Code for the newspaper to have published
the first article the day after his funeral.
20. While the Committee acknowledged that the complainants
would have appreciated being notified of the articles before they were
published, the Code does not require that newspapers contact families in
advance of publishing reports concerning a death in order to comply with Clause
4; rather, it states that any such inquiries, if made, should be handled
sensitively.
21. 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 newspaper had reported information
provided by confidential sources about the circumstances in which the prince
had died which had already been published by another national newspaper. Although
the second article had referred to a “drug-fuelled orgy”, the level of detail
published was limited; it was not excessive or gratuitous. The Code does not
require that newspapers sanitise information about the circumstances of a death
and it was not insensitive in breach of the Code for the newspaper to have
reported this information.
22. The first article had included a brief reference to the
death of Prince Khalid’s brother, and the second article had focused on both
princes and the circumstances that had led to their early deaths. While the
Committee acknowledged the complainants’ distress, the information published
about the death of Prince Khalid’s brother was factual information that was
already in the public domain, and the comments about his character from people
who were reported to have known him provided additional context and their
publication was not insensitive. Publishing this information did not breach the
Code.
23. The complainants had objected to the publication of an
image of Prince Khalid’s funeral, and in particular the fact that 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 this image to
illustrate its coverage. Furthermore, it was not insensitive for the newspaper
to have circled his father’s face in order to identify him from the other
mourners in the photograph. This did not represent a failure to handle
publication with sensitivity.
Conclusion
24. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
25. N/A.
Date complaint received: 25/07/2019
Date complaint concluded: 11/02/2020