The Press Ombudsperson has decided not to uphold a complaint from a woman about an article published in the Sunday World in early 2026. The article is a news report about international criminal activities including murders. The complainant is a close relative of a man who was murdered just under a decade ago. The complainant’s relative is referred to in the report as an Irish gangster and criminal.
The Article
The article states that a Columbian member of an international drugs cartel who had recently been shot dead in Mexico, had been linked to the murder some years ago, of an Irish criminal with links to several Irish gangs.
Referring to the murder of the Irish man it related that he had travelled from the EU country in which he lived to a Latin American country. It discussed the suspected purpose of his trip and theories about the activities of rival gangs in relation to drug shipments and seizures. It related that the Irish man’s body was discovered in a location and describes how he had been killed and how his killers had disposed of his body. It noted that no one had been prosecuted for his murder.
The Complaint
The complainant said the article had breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 8 (Prejudice).
On Principle 1 she stated that the publication had linked a named individual to her relative’s death. She said her family had not previously heard of this alleged connection and had not been informed of it by any official authority.
On Principle 5 she said that the publication had published a graphic description of her relative’s body which intruded on his dignity and caused distress to his family. She said the publication had previously published a photograph of her relative’s dead body and had apologised for doing so. The complainant said the previous publication had left her with “traumatic mental images” and she had been re-traumatised by the graphic content in this new article. She said that the publication had again used a photograph of her relative.
On Principle 8 she said the publication had caused unnecessary harm and distress through the publication of a graphic description of his death. She said this showed a lack of sensitivity and consideration for the man’s family.
In correspondence the woman said the description of her relative as a criminal was disputed by his family.
The Response
On Principle 1 the publication responded that the article made it clear that when it referred to the link between the recently murdered man and the murder of her relative, the publication was reporting on allegations and not facts. It said the fact that the family had not been contacted by the authorities in relation to these matters did not mean it could not report on them.
On Principle 5 and Principle 8 it said that while it appreciated that the matter was distressing for the complainant’s family, there was a public interest in reporting on the brutal nature of gangland murders. It said the description was brief, factual and not sensationalised. It said the details given had been formerly published. It noted that it had apologised in the past for the use of a photograph of the body of the complainant’s relative and had not used that photograph in this article.
The Decision
The Press Ombudsperson appreciates that the publication of this article has been distressing for the complainant and her family. However, she accepts the publication’s assertion that there is a public interest justification for publishing it.
On Principle 1 the Press Ombudsperson finds that the publication legitimately reported on what it believed to be credible allegations in relation to international criminal activities and reports about unsolved murders. She acknowledges that the publication did not claim that the report was based on established facts. There was no breach of Principle 1.
On Principle 5 the Press Ombudsperson finds that there was, as asserted, a public interest in reporting on murders carried out by international drug criminals. She does not find that undue details were given in the article about the murder of the complainant’s relative and notes the publication’s statement that this information was already in the public domain. She notes that the publication stood by its agreement not to use a graphic photograph it had formerly published. She finds that Principle 5 was not breached.
The Press Ombudsperson finds that the article does not contain material likely to cause offence or stir up hatred against any individual or group on the basis of any of the categories listed under Principle 8 of the Code of Practice. She finds that Principle 8 was not breached.