Kate Winslet's children 'would have been teased at school if semi-naked pictures of Ned RocknRoll were published'

Half-naked pictures of Kate Winslet’s third husband Ned RocknRoll should not be published to protect the actress' young children, a judge said today.
Explaining his decision to ban a newspaper printing the embarrassing pictures of Mr RocknRoll, Mr Justice Briggs said there was a 'real risk' that Miss Winslet's daughter and son would be ridiculed at school.

The 'innocent but embarrassing' photographs were taken of Mr RocknRoll at a private fancy dress party with an 'outrageous' theme more than two years ago, the High Court had heard.

Kate Winslet and her new husband Ned RocknRoll went to London's High Court to stop the pictures being printed

They were taken by party guest James Pope in July 2010 and posted on his Facebook account.
The Sun had argued that publication of the 'semi-naked photos' would be justified because Mr RocknRoll - who changed his name from Edward Abel Smith - was a public figure.

Mr RocknRoll, 34, who was previously married to Viscount Cowdray's daughter Eliza, used to work as 'Head of Astronaut Relations' for the space travel branch of his uncle's Virgin empire before becoming a sheep farmer.

 

The judge said: 'Mr RocknRoll’s employment with Virgin Galactic comes nowhere to placing him in that narrow category of persons who, although engaged in no public office, may be regarded as having reduced expectations of privacy due to their important role in national affairs.
'They may include the chairmen of major public companies and the captains of national sporting teams, but Mr RocknRoll was, so far as the evidence goes at this stage, no more than a not very conspicuous middle manager in his uncle’s private business empire.
'In any event, that role ceased some two years ago.'

Mr Justice Briggs ruled in favour of Mr RocknRoll

In a written judgment published yesterday, the judge added:'Mr RocknRoll has, inevitably, briefly become something of a public figure as a result of his relationship with, and now marriage to, Miss Winslet.
'To some unavoidable degree this has led to published photographs of them together, but not so as to place Mr RocknRoll in the public sphere in his own right.'
Mr RocknRoll, who is Miss Winslet's third husband, had argued he was not a role model and was a 'relative nobody' before his marriage to Miss Winslet.
His lawyers said publication would be a breach of privacy, would not be in the public interest, and could lead to Miss Winslet’s daughter and son being bullied.
Lawyers for the Sun said the images revealed conduct which 'some people might legitimately regard it as being unacceptable behaviour'.
And newspaper editors said they would pixelate any the parts of photographs which showed the 'lower half' of Mr RocknRoll’s body.
But Mr Justice Briggs said that while the photographs showed him partially naked and engaged in 'rather silly, schoolboy-like behaviour', they were taken at a private party and he was not expecting them to be made public.
He also said publication of them could harm the children's relationship with their mother's new husband.

Won his fight: Lawyers for Mr RocknRoll had argued in London's High Court that he was not a public figure

He said: 'There is in my view good reason to suppose that, if the photographs or a description of their content were published... there is real reason to think that a grave risk would arise as to Miss Winslet’s children being subjected to teasing or ridicule at school about the behaviour of their newly acquired stepfather, within a short period after his arrival within their family, and that such teasing or ridicule could be seriously damaging to the caring relationship which, on the evidence, the claimant is seeking to establish with them.'
After Mr Justice Briggs ruled against Sun publisher News Group Newspapers on January 8, Miss Winslet said she aimed to maintain privacy and refused to accept that her family could not lead a 'relatively normal life'.

 

Miss Winslet and Mr RocknRoll, who married in New York last month, said in a statement: 'We have stopped The Sun from publishing semi-naked photos of Ned taken by a friend at a private 21st birthday party a few years ago.
'The photos are innocent but embarrassing and there is no reason to splash them across a newspaper.
'We recognise that in the internet age privacy is harder and harder to maintain.
'But we will continue to do what we can, particularly to protect Kate’s children from the results of media intrusion.
'We refuse to accept that her career means our family can’t live a relatively normal life.'
No detail of what the photographs showed emerged at the public hearing earlier this month. The judge heard evidence about detail in the photographs in private.
Mr Justice Briggs was told at the hearing earlier this month that the dispute over publication rights could be fully aired at a High Court trial. And he banned publication pending any trial.
But lawyers for both sides told the judge yesterday that there would be no trial.
They said Mr RocknRoll and the Sun had now agreed an undisclosed settlement of the litigation.