I can understand why Kate Middleton and her legal advisers decided to withdraw her complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. They had obtained a full public apology from the Daily Mirror's editor and obviously feel that the publicity the episode generated will ensure that no other paper will step out of line in future.
But I would have counselled them to have pushed for an adjudication. First, there are specific details about the circumstances in which the picture was taken which we should know about. A proper PCC inquiry would have provided an invaluable snapshot into the kind of harassment which so upset Ms Middleton.
Second, a considered ruling following an investigation might well have swept away the suspicion aired in some quarters that Ms Middleton was trying to have her cake and eat it by deciding when and where she should be pictured. In other words, there was a feeling among some editors and journalists that she was wrong to protest about innocuous pictures taken of her in the street, regardless of how they were obtained.
One editor told me soon after she launched her official complaint that the red-top press was facing a bizarre anomaly. It would be perfectly proper for a paper to publish a picture of Ms Middleton if she were leaving a nightclub while looking, how shall we say, somewhat worse for wear, but it would be improper to publish a picture of her leaving her house when looking utterly delightful.
I happen to think that that's a disingenuous comparison. What matters are the circumstances in which pictures are taken. People leaving nightclubs must expect a horde of waiting paparazzi and must take the consequences. People leaving their home, unless they happen to be the subject of a relevant news story, have a right to be left alone. As the PCC says today, there must be a "specific public interest reason" for following people.
Ms Middleton's complaint was not about the picture itself but about the harassment involved in its being taken. Is it right that people should hang about outside her house every night? Is it right that she should be pursued along the street every morning? Is it right that she should be chased through the streets when driving her car? Have editors forgotten what happened to Princess Diana?
And I ought here to make clear that I'm not defending the woman because she happens to be connected to a prince. Though this case has attracted publicity for that reason, it's the general principle that interests me. I recall that the newsreader Natasha Kaplinsky suffered from similar harassment, once discovering that photographers were driving behind her on a journey to Manchester.
The PCC's overall tactic in trying to stamp out this paparazzi menace is broadly correct. If there is no market, then there is no point to photographers stalking people. The problem, of course, is the continuing appetite for such pictures in foreign papers and magazines. But coping with that problem is outside the PCC's remit.
