The Mail on Sunday is to apologise to James Bond actor Daniel Craig after he complained to the Press Complaints Commission that it had intruded on his privacy by identifying his London home.

Premier PR, on behalf of Craig, made a complaint to the PCC after publication of an article headlined "£4m home where Bond will find a quantum of solitude" on 12 October 2008.

The Guardian reports that the article reported Craig's purchase of an apartment, referred to a district in London, and published a picture of the building in which the apartment was located.

Craig's representatives complained that publication breached clause three of the PCC code of practice, dealing with privacy, to which newspapers voluntarily adhere, and were concerned the newspaper had published sufficient information to identify the property.

The PCC detailed elements of the complaint, which claimed Craig's personal privacy and security could be affected in light of the unwanted attention he sometimes received from overzealous fans.

Craig had previously taken action against specific individuals who posed a security threat, the complaint said, adding that the actor was also concerned about the safety of his partner and child and that the Mail on Sunday had been asked in advance of publication not to identify the property.

The Mail on Sunday was asked to meet the £25,000 security costs that he felt were necessary following the article. According to the PCC, this request was refused by the Associated Newspapers title.

In its adjudication, the PCC said the Mail on Sunday had claimed the area mentioned covered a significant part of north London, that no specific details about his address were disclosed and that anyone determined to find the property would have been able to do so by other means.

However, the PCC said Associated Newspapers was willing to resolve the matter, as it did not wish to cause the complainant difficulties, and had committed to issue a private apology to Craig along with taking a series of other remedial actions.

"The article had contained too much detail, and ran a clear risk of identifying the property without justification," the PCC added in its adjudication.

"The conjunction of the unusual colour and size of the property on the one hand, with the reference to a specific area and park in north London on the other, was enough information, in the commission's view, to identify the whereabouts of the dwelling. This was therefore a breach of the code. Had the article referred broadly to London – or even north London – it would have stayed within the terms of the code."

In its ruling the PCC concluded that the paper's prompt removal of the article from its website, its offer to apologise and its undertaking not to republish the details were a suitable remedy for the breach.

источник

с благодарностью примем перевод)))