The Commission ruled that there was no breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Editors' Code of Practice.
The photograph showed Ms Pryce walking in the grounds of East Sutton Park prison, where she was serving a custodial sentence following her conviction for perverting the course of justice.
The complainants had contacted the Commission on 20 March about the presence of photographers outside the open prison. The PCC circulated a private advisory notice informing editors of the complainants' concern about the prospect that photographs showing their mother at the prison might be published, and their request that photographers should desist from taking such photographs. The complainants believed that the publication of the photograph represented an intrusion into Ms Pryce's private life, and that its publication in print after the circulation of the advisory notice represented harassment. In their view, the newspaper's intention was clearly to embarrass her.
The Daily Telegraph denied that Ms Pryce had a reasonable expectation of privacy where she had been photographed or that there had been any harassment. It said that there was nothing intrusive about showing a person serving a custodial sentence walking around the grounds of a prison. The photograph had been taken by an agency photographer from a public pathway and had been published on its website before the advisory notice had been circulated by the PCC.
The photograph had been taken from a public location near the open prison and showed Ms Pryce "in a place where she was visible to both other prisoners and members of the public". In these circumstances, the Commission concluded that it "could not agree" that the location was private for the purposes of the Clause 3. The Commission "acknowledged that the complainants felt the newspaper was trying to humiliate their mother" but noted that her trial, conviction and imprisonment had been the subject of widespread coverage and remained a matter of legitimate public interest. In addition, it noted that "the photograph did not reveal any additional information about Ms Pryce which was intrinsically private". There was no breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code.
The photograph had been taken before the advisory notice had been circulated and the complainants had not provided any information to suggest that a request to desist had been made at the site or that the photographer had engaged in "intimidation, harassment, or persistent pursuit of Ms Pryce". The Commission concluded that the photograph had not, therefore, been taken in circumstances of harassment, and the publication of the photograph both on the website and the following day in print did not raise a breach of Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code. The complaint was not upheld.
To read the adjudication in full click here.
Ian MacGregor, an editorial member of the Commission, took no part in the consideration of this complaint and left the room while it was discussed.
