The Daily Mail continue to show complete disrespect for grieving families
By Thomas Kinsella
A recent IPSO ruling has once again highlighted the terrible lengths that UK journalists are willing to go to get quotes and “scoops”, even when families are suffering through the most terrible events.
In December 2025, IPSO published a ruling brought by a claimant in May 2025. The claimant’s son’s ex-partner died whilst skydiving, and this had received significant media attention.
The complaint was lodged under Clause 2 (privacy), Clause 3 (harassment) and Clause 4 (intrusion into grief or shock). The complaint focused on the conduct of the Daily Mail journalist who was investigating the story.
It is alleged that on three separate days in May 2025, shortly after the tragic death, a reporter representing the Daily Mail made multiple approaches to the complainant’s property.
The complainant states that various methods were used by the journalist to gather information. The reporter sat in his car outside the property for “hours” and was “constantly in and out of his car and knocking on her door”, repeating this behaviour on two consecutive days.
It is later alleged that the reporter “hid” round the side of the property and, following a postal delivery, entered the porch of the house and began “banging on the internal door” and looking through “a number of letters”. The journalist proceeded to leave a note with his contact details, requesting the complaint’s son contact him to provide a quote for a story he was writing.
The complainant stated that the behaviour of the reporter made her feel “harassed” and found the actions to be “upsetting and highly insensitive”.
In the Daily Mail’s response to the complaint, they denied a breach of the Editors’ Code and supplied an account from the reporter to support their argument. The arguments made by the journalist included that he was simply moving the letters out of the way to avoid standing on them, and that it was reasonable to have entered the porch since there was a door knocker on the internal door.
Moreover, they argued that they “did not see any material distinction between knocking on the external front door and the internal front door”. Going on to argue that “the complainant did not have any added expectation of privacy over this area of her property” since there was an “internal door knocker … and the porch was unlocked”.
These arguments lay bare the disrespect that newspapers have for grieving families in the harshest of circumstances. Their inability to hold their hands up and accept a lapse in judgment is an astounding example of the impunity they expect to be able to act with. Afterall, IPSO has yet to ever fine a newspaper in 12 years of existence.
In a relatively rare occurrence, IPSO ruled in favour of the complainant. They found that the entry into the porch constituted a breach under Clause 2 (privacy) and Clause 4 (intrusion into grief and shock). However, failed to consider that the journalist’s unwanted entry into the home of a grieving family constituted harassment.
IPSO ruled that the handling of the complainant’s post and repeated attendance outside their property did not breach the Editors’ Code.
Following its findings, IPSO had to decide on the remedies it would order. IPSO is given the power to fine members up to £1m for serious, systemic breaches of the Editors' Code of Practice. However, as has become expected of the toothless regulator, IPSO chose instead to order the Daily Mail merely to publish an adjudication, which would have to appear somewhere on the top 50% of the website for only 24 hours.
When IPSO hands out punishments as weak as this for accepted cases of intrusion into grief and privacy, it is no wonder that the newspapers feel empowered to continue to invade people’s personal lives at their lowest moments.
The Press Justice Project operates to support people who have fallen victim to unethical treatment at the hands of the press, which sadly remains all too common.
You can read the ruling and the ordered adjudication here.
