Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd particular, he was manifestly aware of, and paid due regard to, the crucial principle that, where there is a rational view by which the public interest can justify publication, a court must give full weight to editorial knowledge and discretion and be slow to interfere. 93. Secondly, although the judge unquestionably emphasised one particular aspect of the public interest, namely the process of eviction, we are satisfied that he was fully aware of the range of issues of public interest raised in the programme and in the series as a whole, as summarised in his analysis of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Defendant. We find that, when carrying out the balancing exercise, the judge did attach weight to the range of public interest issues which arose in this case. Although there are aspects of the judgment which, taken by themselves, might support the Defendant’s contention that the approach taken was somewhat “atomised”, we agree with Mr Tomlinson’s submission on behalf of the Claimants that a fair reading of the judge’s conclusion in paragraph 195 was that he was reaching an overall conclusion in respect of the whole approach taken to the programme. 94. Thirdly, we bear well in mind the importance of the principle that an appeal court should not intervene in such cases as this, unless the judge at first instance has gone beyond what the appellate court considers is a reasonable view of the evidence presented. We accept that the exercise of judgment in such circumstances is akin to the exercise of discretion. Here, the judgment contains a strikingly thorough and comprehensive analysis of the issues arising in the case. Where this Court is satisfied that a judge at first instance has taken into account all relevant matters, it is always slow to interfere with his or her assessment and conduct of the balancing exercise. Ultimately, whilst we recognise that other judges might have reached a different conclusion, we do not think it can be said that Arnold J was wrong to find in favour of the Claimants on the issue of liability. The Appeal on Damages 95. We now turn to the appeal on damages. 96. Three grounds are advanced by the Claimants suggesting that the damages awards were too low. In Ground 1, the Claimants submit that the awards are: “clearly wrong because they are not capable of bearing a reasonable relationship with: (a) the scale and nature of publication; and (b) the distress caused to each of the Claimants by those publications.” As Mr Tomlinson makes clear in his written submissions, the “fundamental point” in the appeal is that the awards do not reflect the scale and nature of publication. 97. The second ground is that the judge was wrong to take into account the publication of the postings by the Ahmeds when setting the awards of damages for the publications by the Defendant. The third ground is that the judge wrongly failed to take into account the impact of the programme on the Claimants’ children. 98. It is helpful to begin by summarising the evidence bearing on the quantum of damage. We have earlier set out in some detail the content of the programme. The judge