seized from one of its photographers was returned by Customs officials.

The pictures shown on Page 1 today may not seem to be that dramatic and some readers may question why this newspaper went to the trouble of going to court to get them back.

The fact is that they represent the principle that the media, as the watchdog for the public, has the right to cover public officials carrying out their duties.

There is a difference between covering public officials and disrupting them.

One of the reasons we pursued this case was that we did not believe that we were in any way preventing the Customs officials from carrying out their duties.

We were, instead, trying to cover a story which we believed to be of public importance, and one, incidentally, where it would now seem the Customs Department was within its rights to seize and charge duty on materials.

That does not mean that Customs should have used a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it does mean that the Government's actions -- right and wrong -- should be exposed to the glare of public scrutiny.

In this case, our photographer had no way of knowing that he was in a restricted area and moved when he was told to do so.

This newspaper welcomes the Collector of Customs' decision not to proceed in this case and has returned The Royal Gazette's film; there is no harm in the pictures being published now and there was none when his department confiscated them.

In the meantime, the principle that public officials cannot seize materials belonging to the media without legal basis has been solidified.

SERIOUS CRIMES EDT Serious crimes Chairman of the Commission on Serious Crime Stanley Moore has stated that he is planning to conduct a thorough and detailed inquiry into the issue.

Unfortunately, it now seems likely that two of the figures who could have contributed to the inquiry, former Police Commissioner Colin Coxall and former Attorney General Elliott Mottley, will not be giving evidence, although both have indicated a willingness to do so.

For some reason, they have not been given a formal invitation to appear.

That's a pity because they could have given important evidence both generally on their experiences dealing with serious crime and specifically on the Rebecca Middleton case -- which was the reason an inquiry was considered at all. It is not too late for Messrs Coxall and Mottley to appear before the inquiry and they should be asked to do so as soon as possible.

Whether they do appear or not, this inquiry should delve into what went wrong in the Middleton case and come up with recommendations on how serious crimes can better be investigated and prosecuted.

It is to be hoped that the Commission will also examine the reasons why serious crimes occur in Bermuda and develop recommendations on how they can be prevented in the future.