A tribunal has dismissed the Judicial Appointments Commission’s bid to recover costs from an investigative journalist in a ruling welcomed by the Society of Editors as an important reminder of press freedom to hold public bodies to account. 

A pen and notepad next to each other on a table

Source: iStock

In The Judicial Appointments Commission v Professor Barnie Choudhury, published this week, the first-tier tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber refused the commission’s application to recover £14,270.70 incurred responding to proceedings initiated by Choudhury when seeking disclosure of information.

The judgment states that Choudhury wrote several articles for the newspaper Eastern Eye ‘about what he considers are serious and serial failings at the JAC in judicial appointment, including “institutional discrimination and bias in the making of judicial appointments against underrepresented groups in the judiciary”’.

The JAC argued that Choudhury acted unreasonably in pursuing an application to ‘certify an offence to the upper tribunal’ because the commission provided all the relevant information and the dispute could have been resolved earlier. Choudhury also 'advanced serious allegations of deliberate untruths, racism and impropriety against the JAC without proper foundation'.

Choudhury argued that the JAC failed to submit all the relevant information and that applying for certification was the only effective way to compel the JAC to comply fully with its duties. He withdrew his application despite believing that the JAC had not disclosed everything.

The tribunal refused the JAC's application for costs. It said the 'unfounded' allegations made by Choudhury were not supported by evidence. But while Choudhury 'acted unreasonably in the conduct of proceedings', his behaviour was not unreasonable in relation to the application itself. The tribunal said the JAC's costs arose due to compliance with a tribunal direction.

Society of Editors chief executive Dawn Alford said the tribunal’s ruling was 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’.

Alford said 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'.