The press watchdog has backed a newspaper’s claim that public interest outweighed the right to personal privacy when it published pictures of the inside of a criminal’s house.

They showed what had happened to the proceeds of a multi-million pound drug smuggling ring and were used in a backgrounder following the conviction of Karen Tomlinson for conspiracy to supply cannabis.

The Peterborough Evening Telegraph told the Press Complaints Commission that it had been invited to send a photographer along to the police station to copy images of the interior of the complainant’s home.

They were used to illustrate where the proceeds of crime went and the originals had not been taken by the newspaper nor removed from the police station.

Tomlinson, of Peterborough, complained that articles published in the Evening Telegraph on May 20 and 22 headlined Stripped! and Spend, spend, spend contained inaccuracies and intrusive details in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy), 3 (Privacy) and 10 (Reporting of Crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

But her complaint was rejected.

The articles reported a trial at which she and others had been found guilty of, and sentenced for, conspiracy to supply cannabis. She alleged several inaccuracies in the reporting of the proceedings.

The text of the article had identified her property – leading to two burglary attempts – as well as that of her mother, who had no connection with the case.

She also contended that the level and length of publicity given to the case was disproportionate and unfair.

The newspaper explained to the commission that a large amount of the drug money had been found at the complainant’s mother’s house, and consequently she had been named in proceedings.

It was also entitled to report in full proceedings held in open court, including the names and addresses of all the parties involved.

A spokesman for the PCC said: “The most significant aspect of this complaint related to the publication of photographs of the interior of a convicted criminal’s home.

“The adjudication, rejecting the complaint, adds to the considerable volume of case law concerning the Commission’s approach to how public interest and public domain arguments can outweigh an individual’s right to privacy.”

At the core of the Privacy Clause is the principle that everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, health and correspondence – including even those convicted of crime.

Any intrusion has to be justified and in its consideration of the publication of photographs of the interior of the complainant’s home the Commission bore a number of points in mind.

It said: