Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd the work of HCEAs and the process of eviction, but asserted that the public interest survived only where the Article 8 rights of those being evicted were respected, and it was further submitted that there was “no nexus” between the public interest arising and the information in the programme of which the Claimants complained. The principal focus of the programme, said the Claimants, was the drama of the conflict between Omar Ahmed and the Claimants (paragraph 186). 57. Before addressing the more general questions, the judge recorded his conclusions as to the behaviour of Mr Bohill. For reasons he set out in paragraphs 187-194, the judge concluded, principally on the basis of footage contained in the rushes, that Mr Bohill had not been behaving so as to “try and avoid any conflict and confrontation at all costs”, which is how he had put the matter in evidence. On the contrary, Mr Bohill had been encouraging Omar Ahmed “to taunt the Claimants because it would make ‘good television’” (paragraph 190). That should have been apparent to the film crew and to the editorial team at BFL. 58. Overall, the judge reached the following conclusion on the public interest: “195. … I accept that the Programme did contribute to a debate of general interest, but I consider that the inclusion of the Claimants' private information in the Programme went beyond what was justified for that purpose. As discussed above, the programme made no reference to Mr Ali’s political activities. It was concerned with the Claimants’ position as private individuals. The focus of the Programme was not upon the matters of public interest, but upon the drama of the conflict between Omar Ahmed and the Claimants. Moreover, that conflict had been encouraged by Mr Bohill to make "good television" … 59. He continued: 196. … [A] particular feature of Mr Brinkworth’s public interest justification was the desire to show how landlords could expedite enforcement by moving the process from the County Court to the High Court, and the effect of this. I agree that this is a matter of public interest. However, the Programme contained no information about the legal processes involved beyond the statements that the landlord had gone to the County Court eight months before and have now escalated the case to the High Court to get the tenants evicted …. The circumstances of the Claimants’ eviction reveal what in my view is a matter of considerable public interest and concern, namely the fact that the Claimants were given no notice of the eviction and were taken wholly by surprise …. Yet this important aspect of the story is not mentioned in the Programme, although a very attentive viewer might deduce it.” 60. In considering the fairness and accuracy of the programme, the judge began by addressing the complaint of the Defendant that certain matters had not been put to Mr Brinkworth in cross-examination. The complaint focussed initially on the separate episodes of Mr Bohill’s behaviour. The judge ruled they had been properly put to Mr