Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd

A lawful eviction and the publication of the fact of eviction do not remove all privacy protection from events occurring in the home. The court must assess objectively whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information published. Open justice permits reporting of court orders and the fact of eviction, but does not ordinarily justify broadcasting private events filmed in the home, particularly where the material shows distress or humiliation. Consent requires informed and voluntary agreement; participation in an interview under pressure, after objections to filming, may amount to agreement under protest rather than consent. Where Article 8 and Article 10 rights conflict, the court must apply the ultimate balancing test. Editorial discretion does not extend to publishing private information unless its inclusion is justified by a debate of general interest.

The claimants were tenants of a property from which they were evicted by High Court Enforcement Agents enforcing a writ of possession. A production company filmed the eviction, and Channel 5 broadcast edited footage in an episode of Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away. The programme showed the claimants and the interior of their home, including events during which they were distressed and were taunted by the landlord’s son.

The claimants alleged misuse of private information. Channel 5 relied on the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, consent, open justice, the public interest, editorial discretion and the claimants’ own conduct. The court also considered whether the programme’s publication was fair and accurate and the appropriate damages.

1. Reasonable expectation of privacy. The claimants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information broadcast. The property remained their home until they left it, notwithstanding the execution of the writ and the short period during which their continued presence was tolerated. The objective assessment took account of the filming in the home, the claimants’ shock and distress, the taunting by the landlord’s son, the effect on their children, and the scale and duration of publication.
2. Open justice. The writ of possession was a public court document, and Channel 5 was entitled to report the making of the possession order, the issue of the writ and the fact of eviction. That principle did not justify publication of what happened inside the home, which was not part of the court proceedings. Nor did it justify the foreseeable impact on the children.
3. Consent. The claimants were not told adequately who the film crew were, what programme was being made, who would broadcast it, or that body-camera footage was being used. Mr Ali had objected to filming, and his later interview was given in the hope that his side of the story would be included. It was not informed consent. Any limited consent was withdrawn before the first broadcast.
4. Article 8 and Article 10. The programme contributed to a debate of general interest concerning debt, housing benefit and enforcement. However, the inclusion of the claimants’ private information went beyond what was justified. The programme focused on the drama of the conflict, which had been encouraged by the enforcement agent to make good television, rather than on the underlying public-interest issues. The restriction on Channel 5’s Article 10 rights was proportionate.
5. Fairness and accuracy. The court did not find the programme materially unfair or inaccurate. Channel 5 retained editorial discretion over tone and presentation, but that discretion did not extend to including private information without sufficient public-interest justification.
6. Disposition and damages. The claim succeeded. The court awarded each claimant £10,000, taking account of the sensitivity and voyeuristic quality of the programme, its publication to approximately 9.65 million viewers, the distress caused, and the prior social-media publications.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.