By James Simons
A complaint made by Prince Harry to the press regulator over photos of him on a beach in Jamaica has been upheld by the independent press watchdog.
The prince complained that the images had been taken in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is because the Prince had been relaxing on a private beach with his girlfriend, Meghan Mackle, in Jamaica ,and as such had every reason to expect privacy.
Mail Online defended its position by claiming they had received credible information that the prince had been on a public beach.
Prince Harry also complained that he was engaged in private activities unconnected to his public role and was unaware that he was being photographed.
The prince had complained that Mail Online had made no attempt to seek his consent or to establish the circumstances in which the photographs had been taken before publication. It certainly appears disappointing if Mail Online failed to contact the Prince or his representatives before the article went online.
The article, published in March, was headlined: “Time to cool off! Happy (and hunky) Prince Harry enjoys a dip in the ocean as he and Meghan relax on the beach in Jamaica.”
PHOTOS
The article included several photos showing Prince Harry wearing swimming shorts, at a beachside bar and in the sea.
Mail Online said it had relied on the information it received and had published the images in good faith.
It added that it was unfortunate and regrettable that it had been misinformed about the circumstances in which the images had been taken and it had not been its intention to cause distress to the prince.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) said: “The complainant had been photographed during his leisure time on a private beach at a private resort.
“Indeed, the article itself stated that the complainant was staying at a private resort.”
It continued: “The images, which had been taken without consent, showed the complainant wearing swimwear and engaging in private leisure activities in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
“Photographing an individual in such circumstances is unacceptable, unless it can be justified in the public interest.
“The publication had not sought to justify the publication of the images in the public interest.”
Ipso ordered Mail Online to publish the adjudication on its website, but imposed no punitive measure against the paper. The respected press regulator was recently criticised for imposing no fines on media publications that it had judged to have fallen short of acceptable standards.