JK Rowling yesterday won her legal battle to secure the privacy of her children in a landmark ruling against media intrusion.

JK Rowling yesterday won her legal battle to secure the privacy of her children in a landmark ruling against media intrusion.

The author and her husband, Dr Neil Murray, took the action on behalf of their son David, now five, after a long-lens photograph of the boy was taken in an Edinburgh street as his parents wheeled him in his pushchair. It was published in the Sunday Express magazine in 2004.

Last year, Rowling lost a High Court privacy action over the photograph, taken by Big Pictures agency, when Mr Justice Patten said the law did not allow her and her husband to "carve out a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything they choose to do".

However, the Court of Appeal yesterday reversed that decision, when Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, said the children of famous people were entitled not to have pictures of them published.

Sir Anthony said in his written judgment: "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent.

"In our opinion it is at least arguable that a child of ordinary' parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him. The same is true of David."

Sir Anthony, the second-most senior judge in England and Wales, said his position might be "quite different" if the child's parents courted publicity to promote their interests, but recognised the parents "have taken care to keep their children out of the public gaze".

Rowling and Dr Murray said: "We embarked on this lawsuit not because we were seeking special privileges for our children but because we wanted them to grow up free from unwarranted intrusion into their privacy."

This is the first case of its kind in Britain, with yesterday's judgment seen as setting a privacy law for children.

Rowling's lawyer, Keith Schilling, said: "It will have a profound effect especially on certain sections of the paparazzi, but I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the media will welcome it."

Max Clifford, celebrity PR adviser, said editors frequently protected the identity of the children of celebrities but welcomed the ruling: "Obviously there are some families that like parading their children and a newspaper could not be punished for that, but broadly speaking the children of celebrities should be treated in the same way as children of other families."

Sir Anthony rejected the High Court stance that routine acts such as a visit to a shop or a ride on the bus should not attract any reasonable expectation of privacy.

He added he had "little doubt" that, were the case to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights, the balance between the right to privacy and the right to expression - as enjoyed by the media - would come down in favour of JK Rowling's son.

Alan Williams, chief executive of Big Pictures Agency, had no comment to make.

Press Complaints Commission guidelines state that photographs of those under 16 should not be taken without parental permission.

Angela McCracken, media law expert at Levy and McRae in Glasgow, said yesterday's ruling moved the self-imposed restriction into the legal framework. "This sets the foundations for a right of privacy for all children, be they children of ordinary people or celebrities," she said.