Update, 25 April 2026: The Times has now published its own investigation into our case, alongside The Telegraph's earlier reporting. The piece appears in today's print edition. Here is a gift link so you can see it behind the paywall: The Times Gift Link
Update, 22 April 2026: Very reluctantly, we have today launched a crowdfunding campaign to enable US legal action against Marriott. We have already spent £11,000 ($15,000) of our own money on the case on legal fees so far and have seeded the campaign with a further £3,000 ($4,000). Neither of us will receive any money from it. All surplus, and any recoveries from Marriott, will be donated in equal shares to Equality Now, RAINN, Rape Crisis England & Wales, and IDAS. The campaign is subject to independent legal oversight. Click here to visit the page
Published 6am, Monday 20 April 2026, to coincide with The Telegraph's investigation into our case.Original Public statement from Sarah and CraigWe are Sarah and Craig, a married British couple. In the summer of 2024, we were staying at The Ritz-Carlton Doha, a Marriott hotel, on a work trip for Craig. What happened during that stay, and what has followed, has changed both of our lives. We are speaking publicly now because we believe others need to know.The Telegraph's investigation, published today, sets out the detail in full. It sits behind a paywall. This statement summarises what happened for readers who are unable to access it.What happened at the hotel:While Craig was out working, Sarah was sexually harassed at the hotel pool by two male guests. One of them asked for her room number, made clear he intended to come to her room and said he 'would sleep with her'. Sarah understood this as a threat of sexual violence.Sarah returned to the room and messaged Craig to tell him what had happened. Craig then reported the incident to hotel management and specifically asked that Sarah not be contacted directly, given how shaken she was. The hotel ignored that request and approached Sarah directly.Senior hotel staff told us they were taking the matter seriously, assured us that the men had been removed from the hotel, and urged us to stay. We relied on those assurances.Two days later, the same men reappeared inside the hotel. The assurance we had been given was untrue. Sarah suffered a severe trauma response. We left the hotel the same day.What happened after we complained:Craig raised a formal complaint with Marriott, including a formal escalation to Marriott's senior leadership. He also posted a short Tripadvisor review warning other women about what had happened. The review was online for three days before Tripadvisor removed it at Marriott's request. Marriott declined to engage meaningfully with the complaint.We subsequently discovered that a criminal case had been filed against Craig in Qatar, brought by The Ritz-Carlton Doha through its authorised representative, arising out of the complaint correspondence and the Tripadvisor review.We discovered when returning to Qatar in June 2025 that Craig had been convicted in February 2025, without any notice that proceedings were underway and without any opportunity to defend himself - despite Marriott having his email, phone number and home address.He was shocked to learn that he had been sentenced to one week's imprisonment, a QAR 20,000 (£4,000) fine, and deportation.Sarah and Craig took the case to the Court of Appeal and then, when that failed, to Qatar's supreme court, the Court of Cassation.Throughout this process Craig continued to travel to Qatar for work with the government's permission.Detention and deportation:In October 2025, Craig checked-in at Doha airport for his planned return home from work. Before he could board the plane, he was detained by officers. They informed him that the Court of Cessation had heard his appeal a week earlier than planned.The custodial sentence was ultimately suspended. The conviction, the fine and the deportation order stood.Craig was placed in the back of an SUV and driven across Doha at speed to an unknown location.He was held for four nights. The first in a small, dirty and freezing cold cage with fifteen other men.The following morning he was handcuffed and moved to a detention centre, where he was held for three further nights.Sarah, his Qatari lawyer and the British Embassy were unable to locate him until the fourth day. When eventually found, he was visited by British consular staff and later that day deported by the authorities. He remains banned from Qatar.The wider responsibility as we see it:The Ritz-Carlton Doha is operated under the Marriott International group. Marriott held our contact details throughout — Craig was a Marriott Bonvoy Ambassador Elite member at the time, with direct concierge lines of contact — and could have alerted him to the criminal proceedings at any point. It did not.Our view is that Marriott International bears responsibility for how the hotel handled Sarah's complaint, for the subsequent conduct of hotel representatives, and for the ordeal that followed.We've spent almost two years asking Marriott International for their help and despite being loyal customers we feel we've been insulted, undermined, ignored and victimised.Tripadvisor's role:The Tripadvisor review at the centre of the criminal case against Craig was a short, factual review warning other women of what had happened to Sarah at the hotel. Tripadvisor removed it three days after it was posted, on the hotel's request.We do not understand why a platform that invites users to share warnings about hotel safety would not protect those users from criminal prosecution arising directly from their use of the platform. Nor do we understand why users in countries such as Qatar are not warned that they could end-up in prison if they post negative reviews. Tripadvisor has been aware of Craig's case for some time. To date it has not provided any meaningful support or response.Our current position:We are presently acting for ourselves. The scale of professional and financial harm Craig has suffered — including the non-renewal of his senior consulting contract following the ban on returning to Qatar — has meant that we cannot currently afford the legal representation in the UK, US and Qatar that this case would ordinarily require. We are exploring options for representation in each of these jurisdictions and welcome approaches from legal representatives able to assist.A note on Qatar:Craig has worked in the Middle East for nearly ten years and has many close colleagues and friends across the region, including in Qatar. Sarah and Craig want to be clear: we take no issue with the country of Qatar or with the Qatari people. What happened to Sarah began with the conduct of two individuals at the hotel pool. What turned it into the wider ordeal we have described above was the response of The Ritz-Carlton Doha, and of Marriott more widely at local, regional and international levels.The criminal complaint against Craig was brought by The Ritz-Carlton Doha — the hotel where Sarah was harassed — through its authorised representatives. The Ritz-Carlton Doha is a Marriott-operated property. The court papers record that Marriott International's head office was aware of the matter and had urged its Qatar branch to resolve it. A criminal complaint was filed against Craig nonetheless. It is the Marriott group, in our view, that bears the most lasting responsibility for what has followed.We are speaking publicly now because we believe:Women should be able to travel safely, and complain safely, when something goes wrong.Marriott should handle serious guest safety allegations with care, not in a way that exposes the guest to criminal proceedings in the country of the incident.Nobody should be detained and deported, with their careers damaged, for raising a good-faith complaint about their partner's safety.Online platforms that invite users to share their experiences of hotels should protect and support those users when their reviews are used against them.What we want:We want accountability, proper recognition of what has happened, and meaningful change in how Marriott handles serious guest safety complaints in places where guests have no effective recourse.From Tripadvisor we want clear warnings to users about the risks of posting critical reviews in countries where this can be considered a crime, and support for users prosecuted for legitimate use of the platform.Contact:Journalists, media organisations and legal firms wishing to discuss this story are welcome to contact us at [email protected]. We will respond as quickly as we are able.Anyone wishing to share this statement to help raise awareness is welcome to do so and we thank you for your help.Sarah and Craig
20 April 2026
.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Update 25 April 12pm GMTThe Telegraph's investigation, and now The Times, have prompted a wide range of reactions, including thoughtful questions, supportive messages, and some criticism. We have read the responses across multiple platforms and, rather than reply to comments individually, we want to address the recurring questions here. We will update this section as further questions emerge.
1. Surely Craig should have known better — he had worked in the Middle East for years?Craig has worked across the Gulf region for nearly a decade and was familiar with cultural norms and the broad legal framework. What we did not appreciate at the time of the original incident in 2024 was the specific reach of Qatar's cybercrime laws, or the extent to which a hotel could use those laws against a guest who had complained about its conduct.Knowing the region well is not the same as anticipating that complaining about a serious safety incident at a global hotel chain could result in a criminal conviction, detention and deportation. We do not believe a reasonable guest, of any background, would have foreseen that. We also do not accept that the answer is for guests to stay silent, post anonymously, or avoid travelling to particular countries — guests should be able to travel safely and complain safely, and global hotel groups operating in those countries have an obligation to make that possible.
-----
2. Did you engage the Qatari authorities at the time?Yes. When Sarah was re-confronted with the same men inside the hotel two days after the original incident, Craig asked hotel staff to call the police. When it seemed the police were not coming, Craig called them himself. Officers arrived at the hotel a short time later and took statements.They then asked us to get into the back of their van in the early hours of the morning to go to the police station and file a formal complaint. Sarah called the British Embassy at the time and the Embassy agreed we should not get into the van. We left the hotel to secure immediate safety and to pursue the matter through formal channels in the days that followed.In the weeks after the incident, Craig made formal complaints to Qatar's Ministry of Commerce and Industry and to Qatar Tourism. Neither resulted in meaningful engagement with the matter. The next formal contact from the Qatari authorities was a criminal complaint against Craig — filed by the hotel.
-----
3. Why didn't Sarah just leave the pool when she felt uncomfortable?Sarah was at the pool on her own and, having just been approached by two men who had asked her room number and made clear they intended to follow her, was concerned that leaving would lead to them following her. She made the judgement, in the moment, that staying in a public area where she could be seen by hotel staff and other guests was safer than walking back to her room with the men aware of where she was going.For the avoidance of doubt, Sarah was wearing a full swimsuit at the pool and was otherwise fully covered when moving through the hotel. We are aware that some commentary has speculated otherwise; that speculation is incorrect and we would ask people to set it aside.
-----
4. What about the British Embassy? Weren't they able to help?The Embassy was made aware of Craig's situation when he was detained in October 2025. Despite this, the Embassy, Sarah, and Craig's Qatari lawyer were unable to locate him for four days. When he was eventually found, consular staff visited him, but the substantive outcome — deportation and a five-year ban — was not affected.Separately, when Sarah contacted the Deputy Ambassador about the in-absentia conviction, the response was dismissive and the Embassy declined to engage on the underlying case.
Our honest view is that the Embassy was not a meaningful resource to us. Parliamentary engagement has been more responsive. Our local MP has been in contact with Sarah since Craig's detention and we are meeting with her to discuss next steps.
-----
5. Was this a honeymoon trip? And why is the timeline confusing?This was not a honeymoon trip in Qatar. Sarah lightheartedly told the reporter she was treating it like a mini-honeymoon because of the timing. Craig was working on a client project in Doha and Sarah accompanied him, as she often did on his work trips. They were at the hotel as top-tier Marriott Bonvoy guests during what was a work assignment for Craig.On the timeline: the events at the hotel took place in late July and early August 2024. The criminal complaint was filed by the hotel shortly afterwards. Craig was tried and convicted in his absence in February 2025. Critically, he had no notice that proceedings had been brought against him — despite the fact that the hotel and Marriott held all his contact details, including his email, his mobile number and his Marriott Bonvoy concierge line. The first he knew of the case was when he was detained at Doha airport in June 2025 and handed legal papers in Arabic. Sarah and Craig were married in June 2025, after the events at the hotel but before Craig's first detention.
-----
6. What is the relationship between The Ritz-Carlton Doha and Marriott International? And what about Tripadvisor's role?Our understanding is that he Ritz-Carlton brand is owned and operated by Marriott International. The Ritz-Carlton Doha is a Marriott-operated property — Marriott's name is on the door, Marriott sets the operational and brand standards, and the hotel functioned as part of the Marriott Bonvoy loyalty programme during our stay.
We believe Marriott International bears meaningful responsibility for what has happened. Marriott held our contact details throughout and could have alerted Craig to the criminal proceedings at any point. They did not. The court papers themselves record that Marriott International's head office was aware of the matter at the time. Marriott declined to comment when approached by The Telegraph and have not meaningfully engaged with eighteen months of settlement correspondence from us.On Tripadvisor; we do not understand why a platform that invites users to share warnings about hotel safety would not protect those users from criminal prosecution arising directly from their use of the platform. Nor do we understand why users posting reviews of hotels in jurisdictions that treat defamation as a criminal matter are not warned about that risk. Tripadvisor has been aware of Craig's case for some time and to date has not provided any meaningful support.
-----
7. Was there a proper legal process? Was Craig actually convicted?YYes. A criminal complaint was filed against Craig in Qatar by the hotel's authorised representative in August 2024. The case proceeded through the Qatari courts. Craig was tried and convicted in his absence by the Court of First Instance in February 2025, having received no notice of the proceedings.After he became aware of the case in June 2025, his Qatari lawyers filed an opposition (a request to reopen the in-absentia judgment) and subsequently appeals. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction in August 2025; the Court of Cassation declined to admit the petition for further appeal in October 2025. The custodial element of the sentence was ultimately suspended; the conviction, the QAR 20,000 fine, and the deportation order all stood.Craig's detention in October 2025 as he tried to return home followed from this legal process.-----
8. Was the Tripadvisor review itself defamatory? Did Craig bring this on himself with what he wrote?We understand why this question is being asked, and we take it seriously.The review was a short piece of text warning other women of what had happened to Sarah at the hotel, headlined "Unsafe for women." It was written in the immediate aftermath of the incident and reflected Craig's direct experience of the hotel's failure to protect Sarah and the hotel manager's subsequent acknowledgement of what had occurred.Everything in the review was grounded in what Craig had witnessed, what Sarah had experienced, and what the hotel's own staff had confirmed. Craig believed all aspects of it to be true.
Qatar's legal framework for defamation, including the cybercrime law under which Craig was prosecuted, is materially different from English law. In Qatar, truth is not in itself a complete defence to a defamation claim — a statement can be treated as defamatory even if accurate, particularly if it is held to harm the reputation of the affected party.That is the framework Craig was prosecuted under. It is a framework that, in our view, the hotel was aware of and chose to deploy against a loyal guest who had complained. Marriott used private corresponce between Craig and the hotel managed and between Craig and Marriott International to support their case.In the UK, a short review of this nature — written by a guest, reflecting their direct experience — would not ordinarily give rise to a criminal conviction. It should not have done so here either.
-----
9. Are you taking legal action?We are presently acting for ourselves. The professional and financial harm Craig has suffered — including the loss of his senior consulting contract following the ban on returning to Qatar — has meant we cannot currently afford the legal representation that this case would ordinarily require in the UK, the US and Qatar. We are exploring options for representation in each of these jurisdictions and would welcome approaches from legal representatives able to assist.
-----
10. What are you actually asking for?Three things, which we have set out consistently across our correspondence with Marriott and to the press:
First, an honest acknowledgement that what we say happened actually happened — and an apology for it.
Second, a genuine policy and culture review so that other guests are, and feel, safer than we were.
Third, fair recognition of the financial damage caused to us, which has been considerable.
We are not asking anyone to boycott Marriott. We are asking Marriott to engage. The sooner they do that, the better.
-----
11. How can people help?Several people have asked how they can help. The most direct way is through our crowdfunding campaign, linked in the update at the top of this page.
Beyond that: share The Telegraph's investigation, The Times piece, and this statement with people who may not have seen them; if you have direct experience of similar treatment by a hotel group abroad, please consider sharing it publicly; if you are a journalist, lawyer, MP or public figure with reach into hotel-industry accountability, women's safety, or consular matters, we would be glad to hear from you: [email protected].
-----