![[Freelance]](../gif/fl3H.png)
Judges’ body demands £14k over freedom of information row
THE JUDICIAL Appointments Commission (JAC) is demanding £14,270.70 from journalist Barnie Choudhury following a dispute over his Freedom of Information (FoI) requests about it activities. Barnie faces a tribunal hearing on Wednesday 29 April, when he will contest the claim.
Barnie Choudhury
As editor-at-large for Eastern Eye, Barnie has been investigating the JAC, am independent body which recommends individuals for judicial office in England and Wales, over claims of bullying within the judiciary. That long investigation led to further claims that the JAC had improperly refused FoI requests.
Barnie asked for permission to seek proceedings for contempt of court against the JAC after it failed to comply with an information tribunal order to release files. This is, as the Freelance understands it, unusual. A benefit of the UK's Freedom of Information process is that applicants are not exposed to the other side's legal costs. If you pursue a legal claim outside the FoI process, you are exposed.
After the contempt of court threat, the JAC released enough documents for Barnie to continue his reporting, and he withdrew the contempt threat in September 2025. Now the JAC is claiming that he “acted unreasonably“ in pursuing enforcement of the tribunal demand and that he should pay £14,270.70 toward its legal costs. The hearing on 29 April will decide on this claim.
National Union of Journalists general secretary Laura Davison said that attempts to recover costs in this way were “highly unusual” and warned of wider consequences if the application succeeds: “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.”
Barnie tells the Freelance: “This is nothing more than legal bullying, an attempt to silence journalists asking public interest questions. The thing every journalist is missing is this - taxpayers fund the JAC. But it is unaccountable. My investigations have demonstrated it spends hundreds of thousands of pounds and parliament never questions how much, on what or why it's spending our money.”
The 29 April hearing in the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal is online. To join, you need to email grc@justice.gov.uk and quote: “FT/EJ/2025/0007: Barnie Choudhury vs Judicial Appointments Commission”.
Judges body hits journalist with £14k costs bill for pursuing FoI request pressgazette.co.uk