Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd 41. The judge focussed particularly on the principle of open justice and its effect on the Claimants’ reasonable expectation of privacy, indicating that the principle was “a key plank of Channel 5’s case” (paragraphs 159-162). It was common ground that the Order for possession was made at a hearing in open court with the consequence that the “principle of open justice is inextricably linked to the freedom of the media to report on court proceedings”, per Lord Reed in A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 588, [2015] AC 588 at paragraph 26. The judge noted that the Writ of Possession here was not made after any hearing, or in public, but Channel 5 relied on the rule stated by Warby J in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWHC 2770 (QB), namely that the fact a court deals with an application without a hearing does not preclude the giving of a public judgment, a proposition the judge accepted (paragraph 160). The judge noted that the Claimants did not complain of the broadcasting of the fact of eviction. Their contention was rather that that factor did not justify “the broadcasting of the information in issue in these proceedings, which went well beyond those bare facts and included” filming in the home, filming whilst distressed, and being taunted by the landlords. The judge agreed with that proposition, and further agreed with the Claimants that “the impact of the programme on the children cannot be justified by reference to the open justice principle” (paragraph 163). The judge further rejected the contention of the Defendant that the filming represented “a foreseeable consequence of [the Claimants’] failure to comply with the Order for possession”: paragraph 163. 42. As to Mr Ali’s political engagement, Channel 5’s contention at law was that his political position meant that he was “a public figure with weakened Article 8 rights and no right under Article 8 to be protected against disclosure of information of this kind” and in support of that submission, Channel 5 relied on various dicta from Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB) and Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 3375 (QB). The judge rejected these submissions. He found on the facts that: “Mr Ali’s political activity was essentially, as he put it, “a hobby”. He had no official position. Furthermore there was no reference at all to Mr Ali’s political activities in the programme. The Claimants were portrayed as ordinary private people, and the focus of the Programme was the drama of the conflict between landlord and tenants. It might perhaps have been different if the programme had been about Mr Ali’s fitness for a public position as a consequence of DJ Mullis having preferred the evidence of Rashid Ahmed’s witnesses to Mr Ali’s evidence about the deposit, but it was not.” (paragraph 164) 43. The judge went on to note that although Mrs Aslam featured prominently in the programme, there was no suggestion that she had engaged in political activity or was a public figure: paragraph 165. The judge did accept that “if and insofar as the damage of which the Claimant’s complain is damage to Mr Ali’s political reputation, then Article 8 does not protect Mr Ali’s political, as opposed to private, life”: paragraph 166.