The story broke in mid-August and, responding to press interest in the allegations, Fortier's solicitors complained to the Press Complaints Commission that she was being harassed. Her solicitors also contacted some newspaper editors directly, asking that they stop the harassment.
Despite the request, almost two weeks later the Sunday Mirror published a picture of Fortier walking with her son in Los Angeles. Fortier made a formal complaint to the PCC.
The complaint, in general terms, said that the taking and publication of the photograph breached a clause in the Commission's Code of Practice that says:
Fortier also argued that the publication of the photo was a breach of her right to privacy, enshrined in the Code, and that as she had told the photographer that she did not want her picture taken, the approach by the photographer was harassment in its own right.
The Sunday Mirror responded that Fortier worked in the media, often appeared on radio and in the papers and was as a result a public figure. The fact that she, married and with children, had had an alleged affair with such a prominent figure as the Home Secretary was a subject in which the public had an interest, said the paper.
With regard to the taking of the picture, the Sunday Mirror argued that Fortier had been walking along a road when a freelance journalist spotted her. He had approached her only once, although the paper admitted that she had not given her consent to the taking of the photo.
The PCC rejected Fortier's complaint, finding that there was no evidence that the person who had taken the picture had engaged in "intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit".
Nor was the earlier request that journalists and photographers leave Fortier alone still an issue at the time the photo was taken. It was not appropriate, said the Commission, "to assume that a request for journalists and photographers to desist from approaching a complainant lasts in perpetuity."
Rather, the PCC commented, in the 10 days since the request to desist had been issued, "there had been demonstrable developments in the story," – in particular "the news that the complainant had contacted the Home Secretary in order to bring an end to their alleged relationship."
Accordingly there had been no breach of the Code in the actual taking of the photo, or the publication of the image.
With regard to privacy, the Commission confirmed that it does not usually find that the "publication of photographs of people in public places breach the Code," particularly when there has been no harassment. It did not find a breach in this case.
"Exceptions might be made," said the PCC, "if there are particular security concerns, for instance, or in rare circumstances when a photograph reveals something about an individual's health that is not in the public interest."
The Commission would not say whether or not Fortier was a public figure, but found that "her identity had been established in the public domain without complaint," and that she was allegedly involved with a senior politician about whom there was "general public debate".
Nor, said the PCC, had they received any complaints from Fortier or Mr Blunkett about the allegations of a relationship between them. In this context the PCC could not find that "the publication of a photograph – which contributed to the public debate and which was taken in accordance with the Code at a time when the story was developing – was intrusive."