Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd Bohill and there was no need for the detail of such points to be put to Mr Brinkworth, since the latter was not present and could not answer as to the detail. Nor was it needful that Mr Brinkworth should be asked about BFL’s knowledge of how Mr Bohill had behaved. He could not give evidence about what the film crew had seen, nor about what Ms Ferguson and Ms Crook had learned from watching the rushes, since Mr Brinkworth had not seen them. However, the judge did conclude that the omission from the programme of much of the footage showing the way Mr Bohill had behaved, and the contention that the omission demonstrated the programme was unfair or inaccurate, should have been put to Mr Brinkworth. He had overall editorial responsibility. Since the matter was not raised with him, that aspect of the claim could not be relied on to demonstrate that the programme was unfair and inaccurate (paragraph 202). 61. Three other matters were advanced by the Claimants as demonstrating a lack of fairness and accuracy. Firstly, it was said that the programme misrepresented Mrs Aslam as being angry with Omar Ahmed from the beginning, whereas in fact she was reacting to his taunt about “beds here, beds in the back”. The judge rejected this, since it is not clear that she would have heard that speech. In any event the programme did show that Mrs Aslam was reacting to a “peremptory demand from Omar Ahmed in Urdu”. Secondly, the Claimants submitted that the programme misrepresented the number of beds in the property and falsely gave credence thereby to the allegations the Claimants had been subletting. The judge rejected the contention that the programme was inaccurate or unfair in this way. Rather, the programme presented both sides’ allegations and did not take sides as to “who was right” (paragraph 204). In any event, that should have been put to Mr Brinkworth. 62. The same applied to the allegation that the programme had given prominence to Omar Ahmed’s allegation that Mr Ali had lied in court. The judge concluded that the programme made it reasonably clear that this was “an allegation by Omar Ahmed, not a fact” (paragraph 205). This, too, should have been put to Mr Brinkworth. 63. The judge accepted that the Defendant had editorial discretion and that, in so far as the Claimants’ complaint concerned the tone of the programme, that lay within the editorial discretion. But he went on to say: “I do not accept that Channel 5's editorial discretion extends to its decision to include the private information of which the Claimants complain unless the inclusion of that information was justified as contributing to a debate of general interest.” 64. The judge went on to consider the privacy code formulated by OFCOM, a matter to which the court was required to have regard pursuant to Section 12(4)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1988. For reasons he gave (paragraphs 207-209) he concluded that little assistance could be gained from the Code or the relevant adjudications cited. 65. The judge then gave his overall conclusions on liability as follows: “210. The ultimate balancing test. For the reasons given in paragraphs 169-170 above, I consider that the Claimants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information included in the Programme about which they