THE Manchester Evening News today won the backing of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) over our exclusive pictures of the surviving Siamese twin Gracie Attard.

The PCC rejected three out of four complaints against the newspaper, brought by lawyers representing the twins' parents, and decided not to adjudicate on the fourth.

The row centered on the M.E.N.'s world exclusive on June 15 this year - when we published the first ever picture of Gracie with her parents Rina and Michael Attard.

Until that day, a court order requested by the parents had prevented us or any other publication from printing pictures or even naming the child - an order we had respected.

But all that changed on June 15 when Mr and Mrs Attard went back into court and got the order lifted - purely so that pictures could be published in the News Of The World and the Mail On Sunday in a lucrative deal brokered by publicist Max Clifford.

At that hearing their counsel Mr Simon Taylor said: ''The object of the case is to further Jodie's (as she was then known) financial interests.

''One can be quite blunt about that. That is what the court is being asked to assist in.''

The couple, of course, did not realise the M.E.N., which prides itself on being first with the news in Manchester, already had pictures of Gracie taken from a public street for which we had paid not one penny.

As the order was lifted we were free to publish - and our afternoon edition caused a sensation.

Within hours, the family, represented by law firm Panone and Partners - and backed by those media organisations who had agreed to pay around £350,000 for their ''exclusive'' - were back in court trying to get the order re-imposed to prevent any further publication in our Saturday paper.

To our astonishment, the judge agreed to their request without even asking our view. We understand he did this on the grounds of protecting the child's privacy under human rights legislation - but the order was reimposed in such a way as to allow the two Sundays to publish the pictures, but not the M.E.N or any other newspaper without the permission of the parents.

Our view was that, in reality, the court ruling had more to do with protecting an exclusive and lucrative deal struck by Max Clifford than protecting the child's privacy.

We firmly believe that once a newspaper has agreed to buy a story or picture, they should stick to their contract, regardless of what happens, and should not be allowed to use the courts to restrict press freedom.

To date we are STILL unable to re-publish our photographs, despite the fact that similar images have now been extensively used in two Sunday papers.

The M.E.N. is now considering appealing against that court order in light of the PCC's adjudication.

So how were our exclusive pictures taken, and why did they cause such a storm?

Our photographer had been invited to the hospital to take pictures of the surgical team who had successfully separated Gracie from her sister, Rosie, who tragically died in the operation.

The parents and Gracie were not present, but our photographer was told by a member of the hospital staff that once he had left, the couple and child were to join the staff so they could be photographed for the hospital's own magazine.

So, on leaving, he circled round and took up a position on a public road nearby.

The Attards arrived and duly posed with the hospital staff outside the hospital entrance, on a car park area in full view of anyone on the public road - which, of course, included our photographer, who took several shots with a long lens.

We accept those pictures were TAKEN without consent, but they were not USED without consent.

By going to court to lift the order protecting the identity of their child, in order to make a huge financial gain, the parents had given us permission to print by their own hand.

When the judge refused our appeal to lift the order, he did so partly on the basis that he believed the use of long lens photography was a breach of the PCC's code on privacy.

Because of that ruling, the PCC in its adjudication today, makes no finding on the complaint we broke clause 3 of the code which covers invasion of privacy.

But the PCC does say it disagrees in principle with the attitude adopted by the court.

The PCC goes on to reject the other three complaints made against the paper.

These were that we broke clause 6 (which states newspapers should not photograph children on subjects concerning their welfare without the consent of a parent), clause 9 (which ensures journalists obtain permission before entering non-public areas of hospitals and protects the privacy of patients while they are in hospital) and clause 11 (which prevents journalists using misrepresentation or subterfuge).

In their adjudication, the PCC said it ''did not consider the simple photographing of a child's image was a matter that could reasonably be considered to concern her welfare, and it therefore does not require consent as set out in clause 6.''

The PCC added: ''It is not the function of the commission to seek to protect the financial position of complainants through the privacy sections of the code.

''Indeed, the commission has always taken the commonsense view that where a complainant releases or sells information or photographs then they may become disentitled to the protection of the code in certain circumstances.

''Privacy is - in the commission's opinion - not a commodity which can be sold on one person's terms.''

The adjudication also said: ''Given that the picture was taken in a public place OUTSIDE the hospital ... there was no breach of clause 9. There is nothing to suggest the photographer had obtained the picture by misrepresenting his identity.'' (clause 11).

Tweet