Costs award would endanger journalism, NUJ warns
Tim Dawson, NUJ freelance organiser, reports on the tribunal hearing into attempts to recover Freedom of Information (FOI) costs from journalist Barnie Choudhury.
The body that appoints judges is unreasonably seeking £14,000 costs from a journalist who submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, a Tribunal has heard. “This application is unfair and unjustified,” Alexander Hutton KC told the hearing. “It is important that journalists are able to challenge public bodies.”
The First Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber Information Rights), which is siting virtually, is considering an application from the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to recover costs from NUJ member Professor Barnie Choudhury. The JAC alleges that Choudhury’s actions were “unreasonable and vexatious”.
Over several years, Choudhury published more than 20 stories highlighting issues with the JAC. Many were based on FOI requests. One related to the circumstances in which Dr. Richard Jarvis stepped down from the role of Chief Executive in 2023. Some of Choudhury’s requests for information were initially declined. Choudhury contested this at an Information Tribunal, which found partially in his favour. During a subsequent exchange of information with the JAC, Choudhury made an application for the JAC to be found in contempt of the earlier ruling.
Hutton, representing Choudhury, told the tribunal that the journalist had explicitly sought information about Jarvis’ remuneration and pension package, related communications, and minutes of meetings where this was discussed. What he received was “thin gruel”, said the barrister, who expressed surprise that, among other apparent omissions, there had been no exchange of letters relating to his termination package between Jarvis and the JAC. In this context, he argued, Choudhury’s actions were “reasonable and proportionate”.
Representing the JAC, Natasha Simonsen said that Choudhury had failed to read correspondence in a timely manner and “made serious allegations against JAC staff”. She denied that the JAC was seeking to punish Choudhury for publishing critical articles. “This (application) has been brought because his conduct is objectively unreasonable and has forced the JAC to incur unreasonable costs,” she said. She accused Choudhury of using “gratuitous” language in written communications with JAC staff.
Responding, Hutton said that while his client has at times used “robust language”, he had many years of experience getting information from recalcitrant public bodies. “(Choudhury) feels that there is some institutional racist about the JAC. It is not an unreasonable accusation, and it is in the public interest.”
Ahead of the hearing, the NUJ warned that legally enforced recovery of FOI costs could pose a serious threat to media freedom. Laura Davison, NUJ general secretary, urged the JAC to reconsider its position. “If the JAC’s application is upheld, it would create a significant new risk for journalists using FOI requests to hold power to account and add to the weaponry of those who use SLAPPs to silence media scrutiny,” she said.
The case is being heard by Judge James Armstrong Holmes and Judge Kathryn Saward. Their ruling will be published in the coming weeks.