The Society of Editors has warned that the pursuit of more than £14,000 in costs against award-winning journalist Barnie Choudhury risks setting a dangerous precedent for public interest journalism in the UK.
The case follows a long-running investigation by Choudhury into the judicial appointments process, during which he used Freedom of Information laws to expose concerns including alleged bullying, misconduct and the use of exemptions to withhold information.
Over a period of several years, Choudhury produced more than 20 investigative articles examining transparency within the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). His reporting led to the eventual disclosure of material that had initially been withheld, raising serious questions about accountability in a body responsible for selecting members of the judiciary. Despite this, the JAC has sought to recover costs after Choudhury pursued enforcement action when a tribunal order to release information was not complied with in full.
Dawn Alford, Chief Executive of the Society of Editors, said: “This is not a routine costs dispute. It goes to the heart of whether journalists can hold powerful institutions to account without facing personal financial risk. Pursuing a journalist for significant costs in these circumstances sends a stark message: challenge authority, and you may pay the price. That creates a chilling effect on investigative reporting, particularly for freelancers and smaller publishers without the backing of large organisations.”
The Society is also concerned about the broader implications for the use of Freedom of Information laws.
Alford said: “FOI is one of the few mechanisms available to journalists to scrutinise opaque systems and test whether public bodies are acting lawfully. As we have consistently said, the Freedom of Information Act is a vital mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency, and any move, whether through policy or practice, that restricts its effective use risks damaging democracy. If the use of those powers carries the risk of punitive costs, there is a danger that legitimate reporting will simply not be pursued.
“There are clear parallels with the growing concern around SLAPPs, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, where legal processes are used not necessarily to win on merit, but to deter scrutiny through pressure and cost.”
The Society of Editors is urging that the decision to pursue these costs is reconsidered, particularly given the public interest context of the reporting and the contribution it has made to transparency.
“Journalists should not be placed in a position where seeking to enforce a lawful decision, or to continue reporting on matters of clear public importance, exposes them to financial jeopardy,” Alford said. “If that becomes the norm, it is not just individual reporters who lose out, it is the public’s right to know.”
