The Court of Appeal has said a Daily Mail story speculating that a well-known philandering politician was the father of a baby did not infringe the child’s right to privacy.
But it ruled that the paper was wrong to publish a picture of the child without parental permission and so upheld an earlier damages award of £15,000.
It is alleged that during 12 days in 2010 journalists lay siege to the home of the child – who is now three, but was less than a year old at the time. This was said to have involved between two and five journalists, as well as photographers who would wait in parked cars until at least 11pm.