Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd he had not reached such a conclusion (paragraph 217). Neither was he persuaded that any of the alleged aggravating factors arising from the conduct of litigation were established (paragraph 218). In respect of the submission that aspects of the presentation of the case at trial, particularly in the cross-examination of Mr Ali, should aggravate the award, he concluded that “these are mildly aggravating factors” but declined to award a separate sum of damages under that head (paragraph 219). There is no appeal against the decision not to award aggravated damages. The matter thus turns on the measure of damages for distress. 105. It seems to us helpful to consider Grounds 2 and 3 before returning to the main ground bearing on the overall quantum. 106. We would reject Ground 2. It seems to us that the proposition advanced is misconceived. In the final paragraph of his judgment, the judge said: “220. Looking at the matter in the round, I consider that an appropriate sum of damages is £10,000 for each Claimant. I would have awarded a higher figure if it had not been for the postings by the Ahmeds.” 107. In expressing himself in this way, the judge did not mean that he was reducing the appropriate amount of damages awarded for the breach of privacy which he found to arise from the programme. However, in our judgment he was bound to make an assessment of the distress caused by the programme by understanding the impact of the publicity and the distress caused by the publicity generated by the postings. Apart from anything else, he was surely required to do so by Section 12(4)(a)(i) of the Human Rights Act 1998. It must be obvious that the distress attributable to the programme was reduced because a number of people within the Claimants’ community or network were already aware of the broad events from the postings. The relevant shame and distress was simply not attributable to the programme: people knew already. In our judgment, had the judge not taken that into account, the Defendant would have had legitimate complaint. 108. We would also reject the contention in Ground 3. 109. The judge did consider the potential impact on the Claimants’ children, a point particularly relied on by the Claimants. The contention was that it was foreseeable: there would be an adverse effect on the children of the family, in particular through ridicule at school. This had transpired with the Claimants’ daughter. It was exacerbated by the continued broadcasting of the programme after the first complaint to the Defendants. Channel 5’s answer was twofold: firstly, that there would have been an adverse impact on the children in any event because of the postings of their videos by the Ahmeds, and secondly that the impact on the children was inevitable as a consequence of the “wrongful conduct that had caused the Claimants to be caught up in court proceedings”. The judge rejected the second contention. The observations as to the risk that children may suffer prejudice and damage in cases such as In re Trinity Mirror PLC [2008] QB 770, or Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 49, [2017] 3 WLR 351, did not depend on any wrongful conduct by the claimants in those cases, but rather on the open justice principle (paragraphs 152155).