View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Publishers
  2. National Newspapers
September 15, 2016updated 16 Sep 2016 12:07pm

IPSO: Express and OK! breached privacy of Prince George with photos of the toddler on a police motorbike

By Freddy Mayhew

Photographs of Prince George sat on a police motorbike in the private grounds of Kensington Palace were not in the public interest and so breached the young royal’s privacy, press regulator IPSO has ruled.

The Duchess of Cambridge and her then two-year-old son complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the photos of him published on 25 May on and Ok! online were in breach of the Editor’s Code of Conduct under Clause 2.

The royals said that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the private grounds and had given no permission for photographs to be taken.

The photographer told IPSO he had been walking through Hyde Park on his way to the gym when he came across armed police who were waiting for the arrival of members of the Royal Family by helicopter.

He said that a large crowd had formed when he noticed Prince George, his mother and police officers. He admitted using a long lens to capture the image from more than 200 yards away.

The royals told IPSO that there are only a limited number of vantage points from which individuals within the grounds might be seen, and even then it is difficult with the naked eye because of the distance.

They added the fact that they might have been visible to some individuals outside their home did not remove their reasonable expectation of privacy and that no public interest was served by publishing the images.

Content from our partners
Publishing on the open web is broken, how generative AI could help fix it
Impress: Regulation, arbitration and complaints resolution
Papermule: Workflow automation for publishers

Both the Express and OK! denied the images had shown the complainants in a private interaction.

They said the police officers were photographed while on duty, and it was important for the public to see how members of the Royal Family interacted with public servants, particularly when the officers had been “commandeered for a three-year-old’s entertainment”.

They said that as an heir to the throne, Prince George was not in the position of an “ordinary child” – he was a subject of great public interest – and that as public servants, the public has a right to know what members of the Royal Family are doing.

They said the press should not be prevented from publishing harmless photographs of them, taken within view of the public, which show something out of the ordinary.

IPSO’s Complaints Committee did not accept that any public interest had been served by the publication of the images, which they said “simply showed Prince George playing on a police motorbike”.

Any general public interest in the activities of the Royal Family was also inadequate, according to IPSO, “particularly in the case of Prince George given that the Code requires an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children under 16”.

The press regulator upheld the complaint and ordered both sites to carry its adjudication, running to more than 430 words each.

Topics in this article : , ,

Email to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network