One is private to his home. It was the broadcasting that got him the conviction.
I think I'm missing some context. Filming isn't the issue then, broadcasting is? Seems like another asterisk on supposed "rights" that exist in countries that pretend they have them.
An article 10 freedom of expression defence was available to him, and the judge even asked him to make that defence, but he and his legal team chose not to use a freedom of speech defence.