IT IS indisputable that she feels emotionally violated.
It is also clear that Princess Diana feeling as she does, a prisoner in her own home intends to see that an injunction against the photographer, Martin Stenning, is observed. The injunction she obtained forbids him from being within 300 metres of her.
The terms of the legal action prevent him from "communicating harassing or interfering" with the safety of the princess. It follows 15 years of intense media interest during which she has been criticised for courting the press. Her critics say the timing of this move is difficult to justify.
But as the princess's lawyer, Mr Anthony Julius, explained the injunction was not only intended to alleviate her own distress but to highlight the destructive effect of persistent harassment on women's lives.
The princess has had an increasing number of stalkers since her decision to dispense with a large contingent of royal bodyguards.
A German doctor and more recently a former mental patient were both fined for following Princess Diana to formal engagements.
In a 1,000 word affidavit, sworn on Wednesday, the princess said that unless the photographer was restrained she feared that she would suffer undue psychological pressure and become ill.
"His behaviour has affected my public and private life to the extent that I have felt a prisoner in my home. I always leave home with an acute sense of anxiety. Sometimes I do not leave at all.
"I can no longer drive out of the gates of Kensington Palace without fearing what he might do to me next. His behaviour has prevented me from enjoying family occasions with my sons. I acknowledge the unavoidability of being continuously followed and photographed as a consequence of my status and duties.
"However, I genuinely believed that his actions are calculated to cause me harm."
Perhaps it is not surprising that following the granting of the injunction against him, Stenning issued his own statement to the press saying that he would be seeking an appeal against the injunction. "The writ is a load of rubbish. If they want a court case she'll have to turn up. That could be fun." All he wanted to do, he said, was "take a few photographs and earn some money.
Stenning says that he is merely a freelance photographer doing his job and that the princess is intent on making him a scapegoat. "She sees me as an easy target. This woman uses people and I'm being used and I don't like it."
He has allegedly been involved in a number of incidents with the princess recently which have ended with them jostling each other on the street and Princess Diana removing the photographer's ignition keys from his motorcycle. In her affidavit, the princess said that Stenning "follows me wherever I go" and had at times been "aggressive and shouted abuse at me".
On that occasion he allegedly replied. "It's all your fault anyway.
Even the unsuspecting public on the fashionable streets of Kensington have become embroiled in the feud between the princess and the photographer. Princess Diana stated that on one occasion a member of the public came to her aid when she was being harassed by the photographer outside a restaurant, but that when he too was verbally abused, "he backed off, leaving me on my own with him [Stenning]. He only ever goes away when I am reduced to tears. Even then, it is, only temporary.
The photographers who follow the princess on her daily visits, to the gym and who camp outside, her home at Kensington Palace, are, in reality, paid very little for their work. It is often only the most unusual photograph of the princess that would enable them to retire on the profits of selling it on to the tabloid press. For instance, a picture of Princess' Diana attending the gym or leaving a restaurant would be worth £150, whereas "the dream photograph" of the princess with the new man in her life could be sold for £10,000.
Although Princess Diana's frustration with the paparazzi has been given a legal twist, her mother, Mrs Frances Shand Kydd, felt that direct appeals to the media to leave her daughter alone were the most effective weapon. At one point she wrote to the London home. "May I ask the editors of Fleet Street whether, in the execution of their jobs, they consider it necessary or fair to harass my daughter daily, from dawn until after dusk."
It remains to be seen whether the injunction will dampen the enthusiasm of the paparazzi pack since it is only Stenning who is affected by the court order.
. Buckingham Palace solicitors have written to four photographers to ask them not to infringe the privacy of the royal family while they are at Balmoral on their summer holiday it was announced last night.