A newspaper that downloaded a picture of a policeman from a public website and published it has been cleared of wrongdoing by press watchdogs.

The serving officer, who had been charged with possessing indecent images of children, complained that the use of the picture in the County Times in north Wales had breached the Editors' Code of Practice.

He claimed that the February 1 article, which included his address, intruded into his private life in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) and contained a photograph of him which had been obtained in breach of Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge). He also raised concerns under Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock). in that his parents, especially his mother, were suffering psychologically.

The policeman told the Press Complaints commission how a reporter had signed up to a Live Medieval Roleplay community website – of which he was a member – and had engaged other members in conversation about him under a false identity.

His photograph was then taken from the website and used in the newspaper without his consent. He argued that the photograph was not in the public domain and that the newspaper had used it in breach of the Editors' Code.

In its submission to the Commission, the newspaper said that any member of the public could access the website merely by logging on and joining as a member. The reporter did this and downloaded the picture of the complainant. In any case, the publication of the photograph was in the public interest in the circumstances.

And its publication of the policeman's address, in Welshpool, was normal practice for the paper concerned.

It has since promised to remove the photo from its files.

The PCC said in its adjudication: "Clause 10 states that the press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs.

"On this occasion, the reporter had not physically removed the photograph in question, but rather accessed it from a website which could be joined by any member of the public.

"No evidence had been submitted that there was a prohibition on downloading material by members.

"In any case, the Commission considered that the newspaper was pursuing a story that was legitimately in the public interest, given that a serving policeman had been charged with a serious offence.

"This offered sufficient justification for the manner in which the photograph had been obtained."

On the more general issue of subterfuge, it agreed the reporter had concealed his identity when joining the website. But as this action amounted to little more than signing up to a website using a different name the Commission considered that the public interest justification offered a defence.

And given the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the complainant's address by the newspaper – as given in court – did not raise a breach of Clause 3 of the Code.

For the complaint under Clause 5, the Commission emphasised that this part of the Code is designed to prevent intrusive enquiries and insensitive reporting at times of grief or shock. The newspaper's coverage of the complainant's arrest and the formal charges against him did not fall into either of these categories and therefore raised no breach of this clause.

The Commission also said the fact that the mother of the complainant was suffering as a result of publication was an interesting dilemma.

But it said: "The story concerned the complainant and not his mother, whose privacy was not therefore an issue for the Commission to consider under the Code.

"Concluding that the impact on his mother was a reason for finding an intrusion into the complainant's privacy would have created a precedent entitling anyone accused of inappropriate behaviour to avoid public scrutiny by claiming that the publicity would make an innocent relative more vulnerable.

"Such a move would cause an unnecessary restriction on the free flow of information that is a feature in open societies."