An American journalist emailed me over the weekend about the arrests in France of the editor, publisher and photographer responsible for the publication of the topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge in September 2012.

She pointed specifically to the Daily Telegraph's report, saying that "from an American media perspective" it was "hilarious, harrumphing in every paragraph. It even described the woman photographer's last name, Suau, as pronounced like 'sewer.' Wish we could get away with stuff like that!"

I must admit, on second reading, I did note that it was laced with thinly-veiled opinion. On first reading, however, I didn't find it objectionable because we in Britain are so used to uninhibited partiality in news reports (it also appeared here in the Daily Mail).

But my correspondent had a serious question: could journalists in the UK have been arrested for taking such pictures?

The straightforward answer is "no". We have no privacy law as such, though we are subject to article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

Privacy and the public right to know

There was a fascinating discussion about the nature of modern privacy on Radio 4 this morning, chaired by Steve Hewlett. Fascinating because it illustrated yet again how difficult it is to balance what should be properly private and rightfully public.

By coincidence, I was listening to it when I clicked on to a HoldTheFrontPage report, "Trainee reporter goes undercover to expose sex party."

It told how "a trainee reporter just three months into the job" with the Brentwood Gazette "carried out an undercover investigation" into a private party held at a hotel. His news report, with suitably obscured pictures, can be found here and a descriptive article is here.

I have no wish to rain on the parade of a young reporter hailed by his editor for his "incredible guts" in obtaining his scoop. But I just couldn't see the relevance of this quasi News of the World tale in terms of either the current editors' code of practice or the law.

Code first. The privacy clause states that "everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life". It says "editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent" and that "it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent."

It further explains that "private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy."

But this respect for privacy is subject to the code's public interest test. So the protection is lifted if the report exposes crime or serious impropriety; protects public health and safety; or prevents the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.

Did any of that apply to the Brentwood Gazette "investigation"? In what way did it serve the public interest to expose the activities of consenting adults who were, by their nature, enjoying "a reasonable expectation of privacy"?

One possibility is that they were breaking the law. But even the police officer quoted in the story - Inspector Paul Wells - was uncertain about whether a breach of the law had occurred. He told the paper: "There may not be legislation to deal with all parties involved but there may be relevant legislation pertaining to the use of the building for such a purpose."

He went on to talk about "associated risks with this sort of activity, both health and potentially criminal" adding: "So we would discourage anyone from taking part."

I can understand that, of course, but I cannot imagine anyone being prosecuted. This kind of sexual party may offend many people's sense of morality, but where is the crime?

Sure, the men paid for the privilege of attending, but that is not illegal. The hotel may be upset that its premises are being used for such sleazy activity, but I don't imagine its management being overly shocked by such revelations.

Let's go back to the editors' code, which is administered by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). It states:

"Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest and how, and with whom, that was established at the time."

I don't suppose the commission will be required to decide on the article's public interest merits through a formal complaint. But, aside from appealing to readers' prurience, it is difficult to ascertain the point of the story.