This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/mar/18/vicky-pryce-news-photography

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Why did the paparazzi pursue Pryce to an open prison? Why did the paparazzi pursue Pryce to an open prison?
(6 months later)
Is it in the public interest to take pictures of a person in jail? Is it against the editors' code of practice? Is there a law against it?Is it in the public interest to take pictures of a person in jail? Is it against the editors' code of practice? Is there a law against it?
These questions follow reports reaching me that unidentified photographers turned up at East Sutton Park prison near Maidstone, Kent in order to obtain shots of Vicky Pryce.These questions follow reports reaching me that unidentified photographers turned up at East Sutton Park prison near Maidstone, Kent in order to obtain shots of Vicky Pryce.
Evidently, prison officers asked the paparazzi to go away and allow the woman to serve her eight-month sentence for perverting the course of justice in peace.Evidently, prison officers asked the paparazzi to go away and allow the woman to serve her eight-month sentence for perverting the course of justice in peace.
That is a normal human reaction and I think most people would agree with it. But, as we stand on the threshold of a new form of press regulation, the episode strikes me as relevant.That is a normal human reaction and I think most people would agree with it. But, as we stand on the threshold of a new form of press regulation, the episode strikes me as relevant.
There is, of course, no proof that any newspaper commissioned the photographers. It is highly likely that the snappers turned up on their own initiative.There is, of course, no proof that any newspaper commissioned the photographers. It is highly likely that the snappers turned up on their own initiative.
Though they obviously expected that their photographs would be saleable, there is no indication that papers would have bought them.Though they obviously expected that their photographs would be saleable, there is no indication that papers would have bought them.
But my three questions above require answers. My hunch is that the public interest test would fail. Do we need to see someone suffering the shame of incarceration?But my three questions above require answers. My hunch is that the public interest test would fail. Do we need to see someone suffering the shame of incarceration?
As for the code, there is no specific reference to prisons, but it would be a moot point as to whether it would intrude into someone's privacy to photograph them while imprisoned. After all, "open" prisons are as described. (I seem to recall that footballer George Best was pictured in Ford open prison in Sussex during his time there).As for the code, there is no specific reference to prisons, but it would be a moot point as to whether it would intrude into someone's privacy to photograph them while imprisoned. After all, "open" prisons are as described. (I seem to recall that footballer George Best was pictured in Ford open prison in Sussex during his time there).
If the photographers left the scene once asked to do so, there's also no question of harassment.If the photographers left the scene once asked to do so, there's also no question of harassment.
The law? Well, as long as the photographers were not trespassing when taking their pictures, I would guess that there is nothing to prohibit them snapping away.The law? Well, as long as the photographers were not trespassing when taking their pictures, I would guess that there is nothing to prohibit them snapping away.
You might reasonably say: so what? Even if the law is silent and the editors' code is silent, there is no earthly reason to humiliate this woman still further. I agree and, I hope, so will editors. But it's their call.You might reasonably say: so what? Even if the law is silent and the editors' code is silent, there is no earthly reason to humiliate this woman still further. I agree and, I hope, so will editors. But it's their call.
I concede that it is a matter of taste and discretion and not a matter of legality. Again, that is an editorial decision.I concede that it is a matter of taste and discretion and not a matter of legality. Again, that is an editorial decision.
Pryce was transferred from Holloway to East Sutton four days after being sentenced. According to The Guardian's report, the open prison holds female offenders in open conditions that "preparing them for resettlement in the community."Pryce was transferred from Holloway to East Sutton four days after being sentenced. According to The Guardian's report, the open prison holds female offenders in open conditions that "preparing them for resettlement in the community."
It does not prepare them, however, for press intrusion.It does not prepare them, however, for press intrusion.
PS: If anyone can advise on the law or interpret the editors' code with greater insight, please don't hesitate to contact me.PS: If anyone can advise on the law or interpret the editors' code with greater insight, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.