The newspaper argued that the address was in the public domain: the name of the road had already been published in another newspaper, and the electoral register and Land Registry identified the complainant as the owner. It did, however, offer not to republish the precise location of the property unless it became newsworthy.

ADJUDICATION: The Commission recognises that high-profile individuals may be exposed to security problems if their precise addresses are published. Indeed, the newspaper itself noted that the complainant had "gained her fair share of stalkers and obsessive fans". The Commission was satisfied that the photograph and its caption contained sufficient information to identify the exact location the property. It did not consider that the newspaper had demonstrated that the information was in the public domain to such an extent as to justify publishing it in this way. There was therefore a breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) on this point.