The Court of Appeal has today handed down its decision on the appeal by Associated Newspapers against the decision of the High Court that the Mail Online was not entitled to publish unpixelated pictures of Paul Weller's 16 year old daughter and 10 month old twins.
While the photographs had been taken in a public place - on a shopping trip in Santa Monica, California - they were taken without the consent of the parents and after the photographer had been asked to stop.
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Justice Dingemans had been right to find that, since the Wellers were on a private family outing, they had a reasonable expectation of privacy and were therefore entitled to the protection of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects a person's right to a private and family life.
There was no countervailing public interest argument which would permit the Mail Online to infringe their privacy rights by publishing the photographs on its website. The private information in question, i.e. the photographs, were not, in the language of the European Court of Human Rights, capable of contributing to a debate of public importance.
The Mail's argument that the children had a lower expectation of privacy, because they were the children of well known parents, received short shrift from the Court.
The Mail was ordered to pay the Wellers' costs of the appeal.