The Society of Editors has welcomed a tribunal ruling which rejected an application by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to recover costs from investigative journalist Professor Barnie Choudhury.
The case arose from Professor Choudhury’s long-running efforts to obtain information from the JAC under the Freedom of Information Act as part of his reporting into judicial appointments and diversity within the judiciary.
The First-tier Tribunal refused the JAC’s application for costs and accepted that Professor Choudhury had a genuine belief that the JAC had not fully complied with a disclosure order. The Tribunal found that it was not unreasonable for him to seek enforcement of that order through the legal mechanisms available to him.
Dawn Alford, Chief Executive of the Society of Editors, said:
“This ruling is an important reminder that journalists must be free to pursue legitimate public-interest investigations and to challenge public authorities when they believe information is being withheld.
“Freedom of information and open justice are vital pillars of democratic accountability. Journalists play a crucial role in scrutinising public institutions and ensuring that decisions made in the public interest can themselves be subject to public scrutiny.
“The Society of Editors supported Barnie Choudhury throughout this case because of the wider principles involved. Investigative journalism often requires persistence, determination and, at times, legal challenge. Reporters should not be deterred from pursuing legitimate public-interest stories through fear of financial consequences when they are acting reasonably and in good faith.
“We welcome the Tribunal’s recognition of the importance of those principles and the role journalists play in holding institutions to account.”
Professor Barnie Choudhury said: “I’m grateful that the Tribunal recognised my right as a journalist to pursue this matter and to seek answers on issues of public interest.
“This case was never simply about me. It was about the ability of journalists to ask difficult questions, challenge public bodies and pursue information where there is a legitimate public interest in doing so.
“I hope this outcome reassures journalists that scrutiny matters, transparency matters and that public institutions should expect robust examination of their decisions and actions.”
