Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd a matter of general public interest. Here, too, there was no basis for the suggested failure to take into account the evidence of Mr Brinkworth. He had given no evidence as to the process of editing, which had lent to the programme the focus that it bore. Analysis on Liability 78. The judicial dicta in Campbell v MGN Ltd are unanimous in their overall thrust. At paragraph 28, when considering “how the tension between privacy and freedom of expression should be resolved”, Lord Nicholls recorded his approach as follows: “28. …On the one hand, publication of this information in the unusual circumstances of this case represents, at most, an intrusion into Miss Campbell's private life to a comparatively minor degree. On the other hand, non-publication of this information would have robbed a legitimate and sympathetic newspaper story of attendant detail which added colour and conviction. This information was published in order to demonstrate Miss Campbell's commitment to tackling her drug problem. The balance ought not to be held at a point which would preclude, in this case, a degree of journalistic latitude in respect of information published for this purpose.” 79. We have already quoted part of the speech of Lord Hoffmann. However, in another passage he, too, emphasised the need for restraint on the part of judges addressing editorial discretion: “58. The reason why Mr Caldecott concedes that the Mirror was entitled to publish the fact of her drug dependency and the fact that she was seeking treatment is that she had specifically given publicity to the very question of whether she took drugs and had falsely said that she did not. I accept that this creates a sufficient public interest in the correction of the impression she had previously given. 59. The question is then whether the Mirror should have confined itself to these bare facts or whether it was entitled to reveal more of the circumstantial detail and print the photographs. If one applies the test of necessity or proportionality which I have suggested, this is a matter on which different people may have different views. That appears clearly enough from the judgments which have been delivered in this case. But judges are not newspaper editors. It may have been possible for the Mirror to satisfy the public interest in publication with a story which contained less detail and omitted the photographs. But the Mirror said that they wanted to show themselves sympathetic to Ms Campbell's efforts to overcome her dependency. For this purpose, some details about her frequency of attendance at NA meetings were needed. I agree with the observation of the Court of Appeal, at p 660, para 52, that it is harsh to criticise the editor for "painting a somewhat fuller picture in order to show her in a sympathetic light."”