Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. 52. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd Having concluded that the Claimant’s privacy rights were engaged, the judge proceeded to consider the balance between those rights and the Defendant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. He adopted the approach: “180. … stated by Lord Steyn in Re S (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47; [2005] 1 AC 539 at [17]: "First, neither article (8 or 10) has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each. For convenience I will call this the ultimate balancing test."” 53. In paragraphs 181 to 183, the judge reminded himself of the authority establishing the importance of freedom of expression within the Convention by reference to Axel Springer v Germany (2012) 32 BHRC 493, [2012] EMLR 15 where the court emphasised that it is not “for the court … to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what techniques should be adopted”. The judge further reminded himself of the remark of Lord Hoffmann in Campbell at paragraph 59: "judges are not newspaper editors”. He quoted Lord Hope’s remark in paragraph 25 of In Re British Broadcasting Corporation [2009] UKHL 34, [2010] 1 AC 145 to the effect that judges: “are not broadcasting editors either". The judge quoted the remark in the judgment of Baroness Hale and Lord Toulson in O v Rhodes [2015] UKSC 32, [2016] AC 219 at paragraph 78: "A right to convey information to the public carries with it a right to choose the language in which it is expressed in order to convey the information most effectively … " 54. As to the question of the identification of the Claimants, the judge reminded himself of the well-known passage from the judgment of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in In Re Guardian News and Media [2010] UKSC 1, [2010] 2 AC 697 at paragraph 63 emphasising the importance to the press and other media of naming individuals to focus the attention of the reader or watcher. 55. Having reminded himself of the relevant authorities and principles, the judge proceeded to make his assessment as to the public interest. 56. The judge began by observing that, although the question of public interest must be objectively assessed by the court, he would accord some weight to the genuinely held views of the programme-maker and broadcaster, that the programme was in the public interest (paragraph 184). He recorded the submission on behalf of the Defendant to the effect that the programme addressed a number of matters of real public interest: levels of personal debt; rent arrears of tenants; dependence of tenants on benefits; the effect of the enforcement of Writs of Possession by HCEAs; and the consequences for landlords and tenants. It was contended that the Defendant was justified in illustrating those issues by reference to real people and real situations (paragraph 185). The Claimants accepted there was a public interest in broadcasting information concerning