The PCC said that, in both cases, "a regrettable lapse in editorial judgement" led to an invasion of her privacy in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice.
The newspapers had published stories which reported that Ms Minogue was expecting her first child, despite the fact that she had not yet had her twelve week scan. They argued that publication could be justified on the grounds that the information about the pregnancy was already in the public domain, having appeared on the Sydney Morning Herald website the day before, as well as on a blog. This, they argued, meant that the information ceased to be private.
The Commission did not accept this argument. The references in the Sydney Morning Herald and the blog were speculative rather than confirmed, and did not mean that the information was so extensively in the public domain that it would have been perverse not to refer to it. It concluded "this was no more than common sense; otherwise, any reference online would represent automatic justification for a newspaper to publish otherwise intrusive material".
PCC Director Stephen Abell (pictured) said: "This case is an important reminder to editors of the high standards required by Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code around health matters. The Commission's case law in this area make absolutely clear the care the PCC expects newspapers to take when considering stories about pregnancy".
Both adjudications were published today on page 3. To read the Daily Mirror adjudication, please click here. To read the Daily Record adjudication, please click here.
The PCC has previously upheld complaints from Charlotte Church and the actress Joanna Riding about articles which also referred to the early stages of pregnancy.
