Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. 44. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd The judge expressed his overall assessment of the Claimants’ expectation of privacy and the effect of the broadcast in the following terms: “169. In my judgment the principal factors relied upon by the Claimants do lead to the conclusion that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information in question. The Programme was largely filmed in their home; it showed them being evicted without prior warning; it showed them in a state of shock and distress; it showed them being taunted by Omar Ahmed; and it was foreseeable that the broadcasting of the Programme would have an adverse effect on their children. I do not accept that the open justice principle means that the Claimants' Article 8 rights were not engaged. Open justice means that Channel 5 was entitled to report the facts that the courts had made the Order for Possession and issued the Writ of Possession and in consequence the Claimants had been lawfully evicted; but what happened in their home on 2 April 2015 was not part of the proceedings. Nor do I consider that the broadcasting of the information was an inevitable consequence of the Claimants' failure to comply with the Order for Possession. Nor do I accept that Mr Ali's Article 8 rights were significantly weakened by his political activity. Mrs Aslam had not engaged in political activity at all. I accept that the Claimants, and their children, had already suffered damage to their privacy as a result of the Ahmeds' postings on social media, but I do not accept that this meant that the broadcasting of Programme either could not or did not inflict further damage given the substantial scale and duration of the broadcasting.” 45. The judge also concluded that the filming taking place in the street could not be meaningfully divorced from that which was filmed inside the property as they formed a “single sequence of events”. Hence the judge concluded that the Claimants did indeed have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in respect of those events. 46. The judge went on to consider whether the Claimants consented to the broadcast. The Defendant contended that Mr Ali had indeed consented to the broadcasting of the programme, or at least to much of the key information in the programme, by agreeing to be interviewed at 9:31am. It was said that Mrs Aslam “did not dissociate herself” from this. The Defendant had contended that this constituted a waiver by the Claimants of their right to privacy, treating it as an aspect of issue of reasonable expectation of privacy, but the judge addressed the issue separately. He began by considering what had not happened. When Mr Bohill entered the property and he explained to Mr Ali who he and his colleague Mr Shore were, he did not explain who the film crew were or why they were present. At no point did anyone explain to the Claimants this was a programme for Channel 5, although that had been explained to the Ahmeds and to the police officers. The film crew did not follow the instructions given in BFL’s “production bible”, which was in evidence in the case. Mr Rae had made an attempt to do so at 8:29, but that was cut across by Mr Bohill. Nor were the Claimants informed that the two HCEAs “were effectively filming for the programme with their body cameras”: paragraph 172.