Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. 47. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd The judge emphasised that when Mr Bohill and the film crew arrived they woke Mr Ali. As the judge put it: “173. … When he came to the door of his bedroom, he was clearly drowsy and confused. In my view he was not in a fit state to give informed consent then. He was in a fit state to do so by 9:31, but I do not consider that, by giving an interview then, he can be taken retrospectively to have given his consent to the broadcasting of material filmed when he was not in a position to consent.” 48. The judge noted that Mr Ali had first asked for an explanation as to the presence of the film crew at 8:29, objected to filming at 8:43 and 9:16 and between those times had requested the crew to leave the bedroom at 9:00am. Mr Ali had shut the bedroom door several times trying to exclude the film crew. The judge further observed: “174. … Reliance was placed by counsel for Channel 5 upon the fact that at 9:36 Mr Ali objected to Omar Ahmed filming and said "you are filming this is enough" ([107]). Given that Mr Ali had already objected to being filmed twice without avail, however, I consider that the sense he was conveying was that the filming by the crew was bad enough without Omar Ahmed filming as well.” 49. In relation to the consent to be interviewed at 9:31, the judge noted from his witness statement that by then Mr Ali “was aware … that there was a chance that whether I liked it or not, the eviction was going to be on television”. He attempted to resile from that evidence in the witness box but it was confirmed by the film rushes, and the judge accepted it: paragraph 176. The judge concluded that by then Mr Ali understood he was choosing the lesser of two evils: not to agree to be interviewed and take the risk that whatever programme was being filmed would be broadcast without his side of the story being included, or to agree to be interviewed, and hope that his side of the story would be included: “177. … Moreover, he was faced with that choice knowing Omar Ahmed had made serious allegations against him. Rationally, he chose the second option. In my judgment that did not amount to true consent. In effect, it amounted to an agreement to participate under protest. Moreover it was not fully informed agreement, given that he was not told anything about the programme that was being filmed or who would broadcast it or about the body cameras” 50. There was no doubt that Mr Ali withdrew any consent, during his telephone call to the Defendant, prior to the first broadcast. 51. As the judge noted, Mrs Aslam independently objected to being filmed at 9:14. She never consented to being interviewed.