Actress Kate Winslet's husband is not a public figure in his own right, a High Court judge has said.
Ned RocknRoll had "briefly become something of public figure" as a result of his relationship with Miss Winslet, said Mr Justice Briggs.
But the judge said that was not enough to place Mr RocknRoll – a nephew of tycoon Sir Richard Branson – into the public sphere.
Mr Justice Briggs's analysis emerged as he revealed his reasons for preventing a tabloid newspaper printing "innocent but embarrassing" photographs taken of Mr RocknRoll at a private fancy dress party with an "outrageous" theme more than two years ago.
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 Justice Briggs ruled against newspaper bosses following a two-day hearing at the High Court in London earlier this month. He revealed his reasons for the decision in a written judgment published yesterday.
Mr Justice Briggs said: "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."
Winslet and Mr RocknRoll – who are both in their 30s – married in New York in December.
After Mr Justice Briggs ruled against the Sun publisher on January 8, Winslet said she aimed to maintain privacy and refused to accept her family could not lead a "relatively normal life".
She said: "The photos are innocent but embarrassing and there is no reason to splash them across a newspaper."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article