BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
BUSINESS LIST (CHANCERY DIVISION)
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| SHAKIR ALI
|- and -
|CHANNEL 5 BROADCAST LIMITED
Antony White QC and Tom Blackburn (instructed by Lee & Thompson LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 5-7 February 2018
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD :
|The Claimants' witnesses||2-4|
|Channel 5's witnesses||5-7|
|The Claimants' tenancy of the Property||16-21|
|The possession proceedings||22-34|
|The Claimants' position as people about to be made homeless||35-43|
|The telephone conversation on 30 March 2015||44|
|The difference between enforcement by a County Court Bailiff and by an HCEO||45-46|
|The Writ of Possession||47-48|
|Professional standards for HCEOs and HCEAs||51-54|
|The Main Contributor Release Form||67|
|The production bible||68-69|
|At what point did the Claimants become trespassers in the Property?||116-117|
|After the eviction||118|
|The story synopsis||119-120|
|Postings by the Ahmeds on social media||121-122|
|Mrs Aslam's letter to the Council dated 18 May 2015||123|
|Mr Ali's telephone call to BFL on 17 June 2015||124-125|
|Mr Ali's email to the Head Teacher dated 2 October 2015||139|
|Has CPWTIA led to a change in practice?||140|
|Did the Claimants have a reasonable expectation of privacy?||141-170|
|The general principle||141|
|Effect on children||152-155|
|Scale and duration of publication||156|
|Events in the street||157-162|
|The consequences of one's own unlawful conduct||163|
|Did the Claimants consent?||171-179|
|Balancing the Claimants' Article 8 rights and Channel 5's||180-210|
|Article 10 rights|
|Fairness and accuracy||198-205|
|The OFCOM Code and OFCOM adjudications||207-209|
|The ultimate balancing test||210|
The Claimants' witnesses
Channel 5's witnesses
The Claimants' tenancy of the Property
The possession proceedings
"The court has ordered you to leave the property by the date stated in paragraph 1 above.
If you do not do so, the claimant can ask the court, without a further hearing, to authorise a bailiff or High Court Enforcement Officer to evict you. (In that case, you can apply to the court to stay the eviction; a judge will decide if there are grounds for doing so.)"
The Claimants' position as people about to be made homeless
"175. Homelessness and threatened homelessness
(1) A person is homeless if he has no accommodation available for his occupation, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, which he—
(a) is entitled to occupy by virtue of an interest in it or by virtue of an order of a court,
(b) has an express or implied licence to occupy, or
(c) occupies as a residence by virtue of any enactment or rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of another person to recover possession.
(2) A person is also homeless if he has accommodation but—
(a) he cannot secure entry to it, or
(b) it consists of a moveable structure, vehicle or vessel designed or adapted for human habitation and there is no place where he is entitled or permitted both to place it and to reside in it.
(3) A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
(4) A person is threatened with homelessness if it is likely that he will become homeless within 28 days.
191. Becoming homeless intentionally
(1) A person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) an act or omission in good faith on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact shall not be treated as deliberate.
(3) A person shall be treated as becoming homeless intentionally if—
(a) he enters into an arrangement under which he is required to cease to occupy accommodation which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy, and
(b) the purpose of the arrangement is to enable him to become entitled to assistance under this Part,
and there is no other good reason why he is homeless."
"… will need to consider all the factors relevant to the case and decide the weight that individual factors should attract. As well as the factors set out elsewhere in this chapter, other factors which may be relevant include the general cost to the housing authority, the position of the tenant, the position of the landlord, the likelihood that the landlord will actually proceed with possession proceedings, and the burden on the courts of unnecessary proceedings where there is no defence to a possession claim …"
"Each case must be decided on its facts, so housing authorities should not adopt a general policy of accepting – or refusing to accept – applicants as homeless or threatened with homelessness when they are threatened with eviction but a court has not yet made an order for possession or issued a warrant of execution. In any case where a housing authority decides that it would be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy their accommodation after a valid notice has expired – and therefore decides that he or she is not yet homeless or threatened with homelessness – that decision will need to be based on sound reasons which should be made clear to the applicant in writing (see Chapter 6 for guidance on housing authorities' duties to inform applicants of their decisions). The Secretary of State considers that where a person applies for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation, and:
(a) the person is an assured shorthold tenant who has received proper notice in accordance with s.21 of the Housing Act 1988;
(b) the housing authority is satisfied that the landlord intends to seek possession;
(c) there would be no defence to an application for a possession order;
then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation beyond the date given in the s.21 notice, unless the housing authority is taking steps to persuade the landlord to withdraw the notice or allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found."
As counsel for Channel 5 submitted, the position must be a fortiori when an order for possession has been made by a court.
The telephone conversation on 30 March 2015
The difference between enforcement by a County Court bailiff and by an HCEO
"The procedure is governed by CPR83.26. In summary it requires an application to be made to the County Court hearing centre. It may be made without notice. The application must certify that the premises have not been vacated. Applications are made using prescribed form N325. The issue of the warrant of possession in the County Court is an administrative act by Court staff. They issue a warrant of possession to the Court bailiff N49. They issue Notice of Appointment to the Claimant in form EX96 and a Notice of Eviction to the Defendant using a prescribed form N54. The N54 form contains a date and time when the eviction is to take place. It also contains information as to what happens at the eviction and what a tenant can do including a detailed explanation as to how in some circumstances a Court can decide to suspend the warrant and postpone the date for eviction and the procedure for so doing including a reference to the Court fee and fee exemption or remission. It also explains what to do if you can pay off any arrears."
The use of form N54 is not required by rule 83.26 or Practice Direction 83. Indeed, it is striking that rule 83.26 contains no counterpart to rule 83.13(8)(a) quoted below. Nevertheless, it appears that the use of form N54 is required by rule 4(1) and Practice Direction 4.
"64. The 'notice of the proceedings' referred to does not necessarily require either the service of the formal notice of application for permission or even a more informal intimation by letter or other communication that the application will be heard on a particular day or at a particular time. Either would be sufficient, but neither is required by the rule provided that the notice is sufficient to enable the occupant(s) to apply for relief.
65. Where there is a sole occupant who is the subject of the possession order and he/she has full knowledge of the possession proceedings, a reminder of the terms of the court order and a request that possession is given up under the order is, generally speaking, sufficient notice within the rule. …"
The Writ of Possession
Professional standards for HCEOs and HCEAs
"The purpose of these standards is to ensure High Court Enforcement Officers share, build on and improve existing good practice and thereby raise the level of professionalism across the High Court enforcement industry. The standards also apply across the wider enforcement industry and are intended for use by all Enforcement Agents, public and private, the enforcement agencies that employ them and the major creditors who use their services. In order to improve the public's perception of the profession, High Court Enforcement Officers take a pride in adhering to these standards as exemplars of how enforcement services should be carried out in a responsible and balanced approach between the competing interests of creditor and debtor, or between claimant and defendant. "
"All information obtained during the administration and enforcement of Writs must be treated as Confidential.
High Court Enforcement Officers will, so far as is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to anyone other than the debtor."
"27. Enforcement agents must not act in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor, either deliberately or negligently (that is to say through lack of care).
50. All information obtained during the administration and enforcement of warrants must be treated as confidential between the enforcement agent, debtor, the creditor and any third parties nominated by the debtor.
52 Enforcement agents should, so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to anyone other than the debtor or a third party nominated by the debtor, for example an advice agency representative."
The Main Contributor Release Form
i) body cameras (GoPros) would be provided by BFL to the HCEAs which were of higher quality than those they normally wore during the course of their work;
ii) BFL owned the copyright in all the film and sound recordings recorded by the body cameras provided by BFL; and
iii) BFL would give DCBL reasonable access to body camera material upon request, but the material would remain the property of BFL.
The production bible
• Always try and get a full on camera release. Clearly tell the contributor that 'we are filming for C5s CPWTIA – are you happy to appear on the programme?' Get them to say their full name. Some cases don't need consent according to Channel 5. Try and get contact details (email is best) where possible/appropriate. Video consents on a smart phone are another good option. Only get a paper release form if you think it is appropriate – e.g. for a location.
• Always ensure that the contributors have had an explanation about the programme from the director or AP and the filming as per the legal notes script.
• Always try and speak to the contributors after filming or during filming. They are often very angry and or upset so let them know what we are doing and that their objections (if they are objecting to filming) will be logged and passed onto Channel 5. Make it very clear that you cannot give any guarantees – Channel 5 make decisions about broadcast.
• Any conversations you have with contributors about the case should be noted and dated – including after the filming.
• Keep as detailed notes as possible about any concerns the contributor's have.
• Never promise a contributor that we can blur or not use the story. Editorial control is a matter for Channel 5.
• If the Go-pros that the agents wear are questioned, we have a protocol to follow. The agents or you must make it clear that: 'The agents' cameras are for their own protection, but Channel 5 do have access to the material'. Should the defendant wish to complain, they have the chance to do so immediately after the shoot. More detail on Go-pros later in the document.
Your job is not to make decisions about who will and won't be shown. Channel 5 do that. Your job is to make sure that people who come into contact with the HCEAs understand what you are filming; that decisions about broadcast are made by Channel 5 and that you – on location – cannot make any guarantees about what will and won't be used in the programme.
WHAT TO SAY ABOUT THE SERIES:
'We are filming Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away' – a documentary for Channel 5. We are following the work of the High Court Enforcement Agents'.
WHAT TO SAY TO GET ON-CAMERA CONSENT:
'We are filming with the High Court Enforcement Agents for a Channel 5 documentary series about their work. Are you happy to be included in the programme?'
WHAT TO SAY IF PEOPLE DON'T CONSENT:
'I can't make any guarantees about that. Decisions about broadcast are made by Channel 5 and I'll make a note of everything you've said to me and it will be passed onto the channel'.
WHO TO ASK FOR CONSENT:
We need to be asking EVERYONE who interacts with you or the agents for consent EXCEPT people named on a High Court Writ of Possession. …
WRITS OF POSSESSION WHAT TO SAY TO THE PERSON NAMED ON THE WRIT: Explain what you are doing, as above, you don't need to ask for their consent to appear, nor do you need to ask for their consent for you to be there. The agents, acting on behalf of the landlord, have given you access to the property.
Channel 5's view is that you don't need consent to be there or consent to show the face of the person named on the writ. The writ is a legal document that means that the tenant is now trespassing - not you. AND their details are in the public domain so they can be identified. You do need to explain what you are doing however. You also need to explain that you can't guarantee they won't be shown (if they don't want to be) that decision lies with Channel 5.
If you want to interview them, you can point out to them that if they don't contribute, we'll only hear the HCEAs side of things. You can ask them for an interview by saying:
'You're not obliged to speak but we'd like to INTERVIEW you about your experiences and how they have made you feel. If we can't talk to you, the viewers will only see the High Court Enforcement Agents doing their job and they won't hear from you.'"
"The first job this morning, Phil, is a repossession, straightforward. Don't know why, I only know who and where. We do know that the landlord is gonna be there and it's potentially gonna be contentious, because the landlord is there. And he wants to stay, he wants to video it, he wants to see the tenants suffer, that's my conclusion from the fact that he's insisting on being there. So, for that, we should be on our guard that we might actually have some sparks."
"The situation with this guy is he's not paid me rent nearly for a year now, he owes me nearly, probably over twelve grand. Ahm. He's taken me to court over various things, I've only got possession a couple of weeks ago, he's basically a conman. He's been subletting it, he's been claiming housing benefit and that's why I called you guys, I just want him out, I need him out today regardless…"
"Mr Ali: Tell me. Why are you recording?
Mr Bohill: Because we are.
Mr Rea: We're doing a programme for …
Mr Bohill: It's okay. So, this is a writ of possession, we've now repossessed the house and the procedure is this. We'll give you an hour to get your personal belongings together, medication, clothes for tonight for you and your wife or whoever and after that hour we will lock the property, change the locks and you will need to speak to the landlord to clear out whatever other property you've got here. …"
As he said the words "It's okay", Mr Bohill held up his hand to Mr Rea. It is clear that the message he was conveying to Mr Rea was to stop speaking.
"Mr Bohill: I can see the police being called on this one. But if you'd like to say anything to him, you're welcome.
Omar Ahmed: Oh okay. He's had enough time, he doesn't need to speak to me anyway.
Mr Bohill: No, no, I mean don't feel restrained by us that's all.
Omar Ahmed: Oh well that's fine, no, no.
Mr Bohill: Cos this is now your house."
"I'm not inclined to be patient on this one, there's a history to this, the landlord's been run ragged financially. And I'm not saying my sympathies lie with the landlord, but this is a case where you can clearly see the tenant is taking … I was gonna say the piss, but that's politically incorrect."
"Liars! This is Shakir Qureshi, main spokesman in the UK for Muslim League (N) getting evicted today by the High Court. All the lies on the Quran. He lies on the holy Quran that he paid a deposit and the next day he falls down and breaks his leg. No shame on this man, no shame. I had to pay so much money to get him out via High Court and now he can't even face the camera, he's that much ashamed."
"These people make me so angry you know what I mean. We lose thousands of pounds, they don't pay rent, they sublet the property, look at the state of this. I never gave it like this. Look at the state of this property. Look at all the beds, you've got beds here, beds in the back, beds upstairs. And then its all the landlord's fault and people like him are the one that cause the problem. You know. I just want him out, I've had enough now, he's gotta go."
"Just say whatever you like. You're okay. You're okay. I won't be stopping you."
The film crew followed Mr Bohill to the front door. By this time the Ahmeds were standing outside the Property. Rashid Ahmed was on his mobile phone, and he can be heard saying the words "Channel 5". Mr Bohill continued to Omar Ahmed:
"No, no, say whatever you like, just give it some wellie, you know it makes good television."
"Mr Rea: Why have you let it get to this stage anyway?
Mr Ali: Yeah, we have report that the bailiff will give us two more weeks.
Mrs Aslam: He is sick.
Mr Ali: So two more weeks we can pack the stuff and go to the house with other people. I have never been advised like this that it will be like this. I told them that I'm ready to go and that they are just behaving badly and whatever the abuse you have just seen. I even did not reply them, the abuse, he's just trying to misuse the law.
Mr Rea: The television people though, the audience are going to wonder why you've not paid the rent for so many months.
Mr Ali: It was only because of my circumstances, my income has gone to like zero. I was not earning any money. … And they gave me 6 months … But suddenly they bring court notice, eviction order and now it is again very sudden. I never believed it can happen like this like one hour. But any way, whatever the law is asking, I'm trying to do.
Mr Rea: And where will you … where what about this this evening? Where will you stay this evening?
Mr Ali: I have to figure it out, I have to figure it out. And kindly, kindly, this is my and my wife's bedroom [unclear]. Let us pack the stuff so that we can move out on time."
As he said "this is my and my wife's bedroom", Mr Ali motioned the crew to leave the room with his hand. As they left, he started to shut the door.
"He's already got another house to go to, so he doesn't need it, he's already renting another house … they keep shutting the door because they're up to something in there, that they want to put their possessions away or their thousands of money that they've probably collected from all the sub-tenants … And he's supposed to be a main UK spokesman on Muslim League N. Isn't that right Mr Shakir Qureshi?"
"PC Smith: Are you filming a programme are you?
Mr Short: Yeah yeah. Channel 5, Can't Pay We'll Take It Away. Channel 5.
PC Smith: Oh alright, when is that on then?
Mr Short: Err July. This will be on there, because, a bit of conflict between these two. So it's actually gonna be interesting."
"PC Stowers: … I am too sympathetic sometimes.
Mr Bohill: And I am, and I am because you've seen the television programme. On this occasion, no concessions. He's run this landlord ragged and I haven't very often got time, you know, I'm not sympathetic to the landlord. The circumstances of this are that he's just taking the mickey."
"Mr Bohill: … Yeah just an eviction.
Passer-by 1: Yeah I can see that. We were just passing by (inaudible) I know him.
Mr Bohill: Yeah we're up to our usual, same old, same old, really. Yeah. Poor landlord's being, you know, misused by tenants.
Passer-by 1: Yeah.
Mr Bohill: This is a genuine case, he owes over a year's rent, lied to the courts, lied to the court, had everything put off, for months and months and months. Now he's saying, 'But why have I got to go in an hour?' Well, you've had nine months, and an hour. That's right, yeah, yeah.
Passer-by 1: Yeah we watch it all the time on telly.
Passer-by 2: Are they cooperating now?
Mr Bohill: They've called the police but that helps us because then it just reinforces the view.
Passer-by 1: Where is your partner in crime?
Mr Bohill: He is in court this morning …
Passer-by 1: How is your sweet tooth getting on?
Mr Bohill: It's alright. …
Passer-by 2: He's a regular watcher he is, he knows all about you.
Mr Bohill: The new series, the new series starts in July … if you send me an email, I'll send you the box set."
The exchange ended with Mr Bohill agreeing to the first passer-by taking a selfie with Mr Bohill.
"Mr Rea: Where are your children? Where are your children?
Mr Ali: They have gone to school.
Mrs Aslam: They have gone to school.
Mr Ali: Please don't record anymore and blur over face okay? Don't don't don't record on face.
Mr Rea: Unfortunately we won't be -"
At this point Mr Rea was cut off by Mrs Aslam shutting the door.
"This will be really good though. The reason why this is so good, and they really appreciate you participating, is that it's showing a … it can make good television. But it's telling a story. It's telling the other side of the story."
"PC Stowers: I think they're going to come in and film you now as well. So you can put your side of the story to them.
Mr Ali: Yeah.
PC Stowers: There is always two sides to every story isn't there.
Mr Ali: Yes.
PC Stowers: It's nice to get your side across, isn't it?
Mr Ali: Yeah."
"Mr Rea: The, the other question that the audience, the audience is going to ask, 'Why is it your wife -'
Mr Ali: We want we want to go now.
Mr Rea: if your wife is working, why did your wife not pay the rent?
Mr Ali: Who told you that my wife is working?
Mr Rea: No. I'm asking you.
Mr Ali: No, she is not working, that's what I'm telling you, it is not like this, and tell them, tell him, don't, don't take pictures, actually he is not allowed to take pictures, ah? You, you are filming this is enough. Okay? Tell him, don't take pictures."
The "him" referred to here is Omar Ahmed, who was filming on his mobile phone at this point. Mr Ali then shut the door.
"Mr Ali: Okay, and now, what you can help me? Everything is done here. I, I have not given any time, and I was not really accepting this.
Mr Bohill: No, no, I do understand that. That's a normal procedure.
Mr Ali: May I contact you, I can contact you if they have been abusing me, they have abused my wife, they have abused my family, and they have abused my, my political life, as well. And everything, they are telling lies, only due to circumstances that happened to me, and it never happen in my life. Okay now, I told them that I'm leaving this house, but still, they have, they have done this, only to, just to damage my reputation. I told them six months before, six months before.
Rashid Ahmed: You damaged your own reputation.
Mr Ali: I told them that I'm leaving this house, because it's your house. I, I don't want to make any kind of conflicts with you.
Mr Bohill: Can I ask you a question?
Mr Ali: Yes, Sir.
Mr Bohill: You haven't paid any rent.
Mr Ali: I have, it was, it was, it was overdue, month by month, and for that overdue payment, six months before I went, when they came, I said, this is the key, you can take the key, and give me two weeks, I will move to another house, and just give me, give me six months, I will pay back. Slowly, slowly. So firstly they agree, and after that, and they they deny, everything they have done…
Mr Bohill: But they're actually owed about £12,000, aren't they?
Mr Ali: It is not. It is not more than £4,000, I'd say maximum £5,000.
Paul: Did you want to, did you want to make an arrangement with me, to pay the arrears?
Mr Ali: Er, if you can come and (inaudible). If you come (unclear) because whatever is legally my obligation, I will do."
"Mr Bohill: It's good though it's terrific television.
PC Smith: It is good, it's quite alright isn't it? This one will definitely [be] on there.
Mr Bohill: Absolutely spot on. But it's a genuine case though.
PC Smith: Yeah yeah.
Mr Bohill: Well you just heard him talking you heard his story, you heard the landlord's story. I mean I've seen the court paperwork, he owes the money. That's what I've just said to him I'll come and talk to you about the arrears. He's never gonna do that.
PC Smith: No.
Mr Bohill: What we need is a bit of fisticuffs really.
PC Smith: If one of them gets arrested.
Mr Bohill: Yeah, we'll do that."
"Mr Bohill: Well that was quite a classic, wasn't it?
Mr Short: Yeah.
Mr Bohill: I've seen the paperwork, the landlord is spot on. He is owed the money plus the four thousand pounds for the fees so the landlord is sixteen thousand quid down the swanny. But that bloke is as smooth as silk, isn't he?
Mr Short: Yeah.
Mr Bohill: He sounds like a politician, just as we were leaving there, he was just going into his like spiel. But it sort've knocked him back when I said well can I come and talk to you about the rent arrears. He didn't want to know about that did he?
Mr Rea: So you were saying it was a classic. Ahm but it's not … there's one thing missing isn't there? And that's the rent arrears. You didn't manage to get any money.
Mr Bohill: There was no amount on the warrant, there was no rent arrears on the warrant. We had no right to, we had no right to, we had no right to actually take control of the goods. Because there was no monetary judgement …"
At what point did the Claimants become trespassers in the Property?
"(1) An assured tenancy cannot be brought to an end by the landlord except by–
(i) an order of the court for possession of the dwelling-house under section 7 or 21, and
(ii) the execution of the order,
and, accordingly, the service by the landlord of a notice to quit is of no effect in relation to a periodic assured tenancy.
(1A) Where an order of the court for possession of the dwelling-house is obtained, the tenancy ends when the order is executed."
After the eviction
The story synopsis
"This is the eviction of a seemingly gentle tenant from hell and his very stroppy wife. The main drama here is the confrontation between the landlord and the tenants."
This accurately reflects the tenor of the Programme, and in particular its portrayal of the Claimants.
"Friend who was helping defendant take bags into car refused to give contact details and refused consent."
No doubt for this reason, the friend does not appear in the Programme.
Postings by the Ahmeds on social media
"Shakir Qureshi being evicted by the High Court bailiffs with Channel 5 reporting. This is supposed to be the main man of Muslim League (N) and finally I have got him out. What a great day for me. This man is a con man, don't listen to a word he says, he owes me nearly twelve thousand pounds in arrears and he's just a con man. Finally I've got rid of him. He swore on the Quran and said that, you know, he made me the deposit and the day after, look at that, his leg broke. This guy is an absolute conman. The judge saw straight through him and believed that, you know, we were telling the truth, which we were, and finally I've got rid of him. Thank you."
Mrs Aslam's letter to the Council dated 18 May 2015
"On top of that they made video clips and at the time of sudden high Court order eviction, it was shocking for our family they recorded videos with abusive, DIRTY, disrespectful shouting commentary to defame my husband, my family his social and political status calling him different horrible names And displayed it on social media, circulated massively on Facebook, whatsup and newspapers. THIS CAUSED HUGE DEPRESSION FOR MY HUSBAND AND ALL OF US we found it very difficult to come out of this situation AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THIS. My husband is a hard working honest man and we believe that with his hard work very soon we will be able to return to normal Graceful life.
Due to their unethical act my Husband's social and political status disturbed internationally, His future Business plans stuck and stopped at the moment. We are very upset with this act of theirs WHEREAS you are thinking that we have been playing deliberately, NO we are not, we/my Husband has no money But earned Respect in society which due to this Situation created by some of old friends and same background people destroyed only for small amount of money and due to the part of different political parties. KINDLY DON'T CONSIDER IT DELIBERATE HOMELESSNESS. They become our enemy."
Mr Ali's telephone call to BFL on 17 June 2015
"I explained that there was no way any footage we had filmed would have found its way to YouTube. I told him I need to get the facts straight (in relation to their benefits) and that his objections to being on TV would be passed onto the Channel who make the decisions about broadcast."
"In this brand new special they are at the sharp end of Britain's benefits crisis. An estimated 11½ million families depend on benefits to make ends meet. And the Agents are busier than ever, repossessing homes, goods and cash from some of the most vulnerable in society. They face conflict and heartbreak, but if you can't pay, they'll take it away".
"According to latest surveys the cost of renting a home in the UK is spiralling out of control. Over the last three months rent has risen five times faster than tenant income. Those living in the London area are hit hardest where the average rent is now £1500 a month."
This is followed by a caption reading "68,000 tenants are now in severe rent arrears".
"… they're in Barking, Essex to evict a family who are unemployed, on housing benefit and haven't been paying the rent. The landlord claims he's owed £12,000. He's gone to the High Court not to get the money, but to evict the tenants."
"Mr Ali and his family were given accommodation in a council B & B.
They have been living there for three months. The family shares one room."
Mr Ali's email to the Head Teacher dated 2 October 2015
"At the time of eviction the landlord Mr Rasheed and his Son arranged private filming of eviction which later was run on air on Channel 5 with wrong information, perception and untruthful facts given by the Landlord and his Son against us, Channel 5 never contacted us for our version and the TRUTH. Our Privacy and out Dignity were hit very badly. My carrier, business, Political and Social network was hit very badly by them ALL.
The landlord's son recorded it on his phone camera and share on social media as well which was an horrible act me my wife and Children faced since last 6 months or so."
Has CPWTIA led to a change in practice?
Did the Claimants have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
The general principle
"The question is what a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would feel if she was placed in the same position as the claimant and faced with the same publicity."
"84. This action is about photographs. Special considerations attach to photographs in the field of privacy. They are not merely a method of conveying information that is an alternative to verbal description. They enable the person viewing the photograph to act as a spectator, in some circumstances voyeur would be the more appropriate noun, of whatever it is that the photograph depicts. As a means of invading privacy, a photograph is particularly intrusive. This is quite apart from the fact that the camera, and the telephoto lens, can give access to the viewer of the photograph to scenes where those photographed could reasonably expect that their appearances or actions would not be brought to the notice of the public."
85. The intrusive nature of photography is reflected by the various media codes of practice. It is also recognised by the authorities. In Theakston v MGN Ltd  EMLR 398 Ouseley J refused an injunction restraining publication of a verbal depiction of the claimant's activities in a brothel. He granted, however, an injunction restraining the publication of photographs taken of these activities. …"
"25. The principle that courts should sit in public has important implications for the publishing of reports of court proceedings. In Sloan v B 1991 SC 412, 442, the Lord President (Hope), delivering the opinion of the court, explained that it is by an application of the same principle that it has long been recognised that proceedings in open court may be reported in the press and by other methods of broadcasting in the media.
'The principle on which this rule is founded seems to be that, as courts of justice are open to the public, anything that takes place before a judge or judges is thereby necessarily and legitimately made public, and, being once made legitimately public property, may be republished': Richardson v Wilson (1879) 7 R 237, 241, per the Lord President (Inglis).
26. The connection between the principle of open justice and the reporting of court proceedings is not however merely functional. Since the rationale of the principle is that justice should be open to public scrutiny, and the media are the conduit through which most members of the public receive information about court proceedings, it follows that the principle of open justice is inextricably linked to the freedom of the media to report on court proceedings."
Did the Claimants consent?
Balancing the Claimants' Article 8 rights and Channel 5's Article 10 rights
"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."
"A fundamental distinction needs to be made between reporting facts capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society, relating to politicians in the exercise of their official functions for example, and reporting the details of the private life of an individual who does not exercise such functions."
"… it is not for the court, any more than it is for the national courts, to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what techniques should be adopted in a particular case."
As Lord Hoffmann said in Campbell at , "judges are not newspaper editors", and as Lord Hope added in In British Broadcasting Corporation  UKHL 34,  1 AC 145 at , "They are not broadcasting editors either". As it was put by Baroness Hale and Lord Toulson in O v Rhodes  UKSC 32,  AC 219 at :
"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 … "
"What's in a name? 'A lot', the press would answer. This is because stories about particular individuals are simply much more attractive to readers than stories about unidentified people. It is just human nature. And this is why, of course, even when reporting major disasters, journalists usually look for a story about how particular individuals are affected. Writing stories which capture the attention of readers is a matter of reporting technique, and the European court holds that article 10 protects not only the substance of ideas and information but also the form in which they are conveyed … This is not just a matter of deference to editorial independence. The judges are recognising that editors know best how to present material in a way that will interest the readers of their particular publication and so help them to absorb the information. A requirement to report it in some austere, abstract form, devoid of much of its human interest, could well mean that the report would not be read and the information would not be passed on. Ultimately, such an approach could threaten the viability of newspapers and magazines, which can only inform the public if they attract enough readers and make enough money to survive."
"In this section 'warranted' has a particular meaning. It means that where broadcasters wish to justify an infringement of privacy as warranted, they should be able to demonstrate why in the particular circumstances of the case, it is warranted. If the reason is that it is in the public interest, then the broadcaster should be able to demonstrate that the public interest outweighs the right to privacy. Examples of public interest would include revealing or detecting crime, protecting public health or safety, exposing misleading claims made by individuals or organisations or disclosing incompetence that affects the public."
i) compensation for the misuse of the private information;
ii) damages for distress; and
iii) aggravated damages for distress caused by those actions of Channel 5 which is not caused directly by the wrongdoing e.g. by the way the claim has been litigated.