Absolutely. The public/private beach point was not one which, as it were, lost you the case. You won the case because of the particular circumstances.
If you look at the adjudication, it's in fact set out in your witness statement, but it's right to read it out because the PCC may well want me to do so:
"While the Commission may have regard to its previous decision, circumstances will necessarily vary from case to case. It therefore considers each complaint on its merits under the Code."
I think as a lawyer we all understand that.
"The Code entitles everyone of all ages to respect for their private and family life and deems unacceptable the use of long lens photography to take pictures of people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
"In addition, it gives greater protection to children, does not allow photographs of children under the age of 16 to be taken where the child's welfare is involved, and requires a justification other than the fame of a child's parent for publishing material about the private life of a child. There may also be an exceptional public interest justification for breaching these provisions, but none was provided in this case.
"The Commission noted that it was not in dispute that Ms Rowling had gone to considerable lengths in the past to protect her daughter's privacy. This seemed to have been reflected in her selection of a holiday location. It had not been challenged that the beach was not overlooked by other holiday apartments and that the family had gone there in the low season to avoid unwanted attention.
"The Commission was not asked to consider whether the photographs of the complainant and her partner breached the Code but it considered in the circumstances outlined above, and given the high level of protection afforded by the Code to children, photographs of the complaint's daughter should not have been taken or published and therefore breached clause 3."
Well, you would presumably agree with every word of that decision, Ms Rowling?