The complaints, about the publication of photographs showing Mr Huhne and Ms Trimingham in and around the grounds of an open prison where Mr Huhne was an inmate, were not upheld.
At the time the photographs were taken, Mr Huhne was serving a custodial sentence at HMP Leyhill following his conviction on one charge of perverting the course of justice. Mr Huhne and Ms Trimingham said that the photographs had been taken in places where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. They argued that the publication of the images was not justified by any public interest and only served to embarrass them.
The pictures had been taken from public locations around the open prison. The newspapers said that at all times the complainants had been standing in places where they were visible to other prisoners or visitors to the prison; they did not accept that the complainants had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Several of the newspapers also advanced a public interest defence to justify publication of the photographs.
Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice sets out that "it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent", defining private spaces as "public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy".
The Commission considered in detail the evidence submitted by the complainants regarding the circumstances in which the photographs had been taken but concluded that it "could not agree that the locations in which the complainants had been photographed were private places" for the purposes of the Editors' Code. Furthermore, the Commission noted that "Mr Huhne's trial, conviction and imprisonment - and the indirect but central role that his relationship with Ms Trimingham had played in the crime's coming to light - had been the subject of wide publicity". In the view of the Commission, "neither the photographs nor the articles revealed any additional information about the complainants or their relationship which was intrinsically private".
Charlotte Dewar, Director of Complaints and Pre-publication Services, said: "Deciding whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular place can be difficult. The Commission carefully considered the circumstances in which these photographs were taken - including the background to the story - and concluded that, in this instance, the area in and around the grounds of HMP Leyhill where the photographs were taken was not private."
To read the adjudications in full click here: Sunday Mirror; Daily Mirror; Daily Mail; The Daily Telegraph and The Sun.
Peter Wright and Ian MacGregor, editorial members of the Commission, took no part in the consideration of these complaints, and left the room when they were discussed. This is because they had declared an interest in Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph respectively. The PCC's Register of Interests is available here.
