This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jul/18/pcc-chrishuhne

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why the PCC's Huhne ruling was right - but where was the public interest? Why the PCC's Huhne ruling was right - but where was the public interest?
(2 months later)
I would guess that the Press Complaints Commission's rejection of complaints by Chris Huhne and Carina Trimingham that five newspapers had breached their privacy wasn't an easy decision to reach.I would guess that the Press Complaints Commission's rejection of complaints by Chris Huhne and Carina Trimingham that five newspapers had breached their privacy wasn't an easy decision to reach.
The statement by the PCC's director of complaints and pre-publication services, Charlotte Dewar, implied as much.The statement by the PCC's director of complaints and pre-publication services, Charlotte Dewar, implied as much.
"Deciding whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular place can be difficult", she said."Deciding whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular place can be difficult", she said.
She went on to stress that the commissioners took account of both the circumstances in which the pictures were taken and, significantly, "the background to the story."She went on to stress that the commissioners took account of both the circumstances in which the pictures were taken and, significantly, "the background to the story."
One key aspect of the complaint by Huhne and Trimingham was that the use of the pictures had no public interest justification and only served to embarrass them.One key aspect of the complaint by Huhne and Trimingham was that the use of the pictures had no public interest justification and only served to embarrass them.
I happen to agree with them about that. But I am not surprised by the PCC's decision because the public interest part of their argument is irrelevant if the substantive complaint - a breach of privacy - falls. And that's what happened in this case.I happen to agree with them about that. But I am not surprised by the PCC's decision because the public interest part of their argument is irrelevant if the substantive complaint - a breach of privacy - falls. And that's what happened in this case.
In reading the separate adjudications for each of the five newspapers - Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph, The Sun and Sunday Mirror - it was clear that the photographs were taken from a public footpath, the photographer was not acting covertly and that the couple were sitting in the grounds of the prison.In reading the separate adjudications for each of the five newspapers - Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph, The Sun and Sunday Mirror - it was clear that the photographs were taken from a public footpath, the photographer was not acting covertly and that the couple were sitting in the grounds of the prison.
There are plenty of previous PCC rulings about what constitutes "a reasonable expectation of privacy" and it's fair to say that this decision is consistent with precedent.There are plenty of previous PCC rulings about what constitutes "a reasonable expectation of privacy" and it's fair to say that this decision is consistent with precedent.
In addition to this general point Dewar's carefully worded statement also makes it clear that the ruling itself is very specific to the couple's situation.In addition to this general point Dewar's carefully worded statement also makes it clear that the ruling itself is very specific to the couple's situation.
It had been a high-profile case involving a former cabinet minister in which his relationship with Trimingham was an underlying reason for his offence coming to light.It had been a high-profile case involving a former cabinet minister in which his relationship with Trimingham was an underlying reason for his offence coming to light.
In its evidence to the PCC, the Mail offered the most cogent explanation for publication. It said:In its evidence to the PCC, the Mail offered the most cogent explanation for publication. It said:
"The fact that Mr Huhne, a former cabinet minister who had been jailed for perverting the course of justice and had been swiftly transferred to a low-security prison with an easy-going regime - where he appeared to be happy - and afforded enjoyable visitations with his partner was information that it was clearly in the public interest to publish.""The fact that Mr Huhne, a former cabinet minister who had been jailed for perverting the course of justice and had been swiftly transferred to a low-security prison with an easy-going regime - where he appeared to be happy - and afforded enjoyable visitations with his partner was information that it was clearly in the public interest to publish."
I disagree. The couple's relationship was a matter of record. Nothing new emerged from the publication of the pictures. They did not suggest happiness to me. They were, in a sense, innocuous.I disagree. The couple's relationship was a matter of record. Nothing new emerged from the publication of the pictures. They did not suggest happiness to me. They were, in a sense, innocuous.
That's why I believe there was no news value in publishing them. We learned nothing from the images. The only intent was to heap a little more humiliation on an already humiliated couple.That's why I believe there was no news value in publishing them. We learned nothing from the images. The only intent was to heap a little more humiliation on an already humiliated couple.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.