Richard Wallace had no option but to apologise over running the picture of Kate Middleton. He was aware that her complaint to the Press Complaints Commission was bound to result in a victory for her over the Daily Mirror.
In spite of his belief that Middleton's lawyers and Clarence House had "got it wrong", he knew he had got it wrong as well. The picture, supplied by an agency that sells paparazzi pictures, had been taken by one of the photographers who stalk Middleton every day. Though innocuous in content, it is the manner of its being taken that concerned the woman.
The PCC will have to decide if the Mirror's apology is adequate recompense, or whether to proceed with an adjudication. It may well opt for adjudication pour encourager les autres. It would also be helpful to know the answers to a series of questions I listed yesterday because we need to know more about the photographer and his/her agency. Why should picture agencies operate outside the editors' code of practice that applies to staff photographers?
That aside, the commission's chairman, Sir Christopher Meyer, and its director, Tim Toulmin, may possibly need to reconsider their strategy. Their view is that choking off the domestic market for pictures of Middleton will gradually choke off the foreign market too. That appears not to have happened. Photographers and their agencies are still finding it profitable to spend hours standing outside Middleton's house because they can sell pictures to magazines in Europe and the United States.
Dealing with the the paparazzi may, of course, be outside the PCC's remit. Ultimately, Middleton's lawyers, Harbottle and Lewis, and royal advisers may have to contemplate taking legal action against specific photographers in order to prevent harassment.
