| PRACTICE — Appeal — Statutory appeal — Person requesting to see internal BBC report — Appealing from Information Commissioner to Information Tribunal — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction to entertain such appeal — Whether BBC “public authority” for purposes of request — Freedom of Information Act 2000, ss 3, 7, 50, 59
British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar
R (British Broadcasting Corporation) v Information Tribunal
R (Sugar) v Information Commissioner
[2007] EWHC 905 (Admin)
QBD: Davis J: 27 April 2007
It was only in respect of information held by the British Broadcasting Corporation otherwise than for the purposes of journalism, art or literature that the BBC was a public authority subject to the requirements of Pts I to IV of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Davis J so held in the Queen’s Bench Division when (1) allowing the BBC’s appeal under s 59 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and granting the BBC’s claim for judicial review against the decision of the Information Tribunal dated 14 June 2006, that it had jurisdiction to entertain Mr Sugar’s appeal against the decision of the Information Commissioner dated 2 December 2005 that the Balen Report was not disclosable, and the decision of the Information Tribunal that at the time of Mr Sugar’s request for a copy of the Balen Report it was held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature; and (2) dismissing Mr Sugar’s claim for judicial review of the decision of the Information Commissioner that the Balen Report was not disclosable.
DAVIS J said that due to concerns raised that the reporting by and news coverage of the BBC in relation to the Middle East and in particular the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was not even handed, Malcolm Balen, a very experienced journalist, was asked to advise on the coverage by the BBC of Middle Eastern matters. He produced an internal written report which has never been published. Mr Sugar wished to see it. However the BBC rejected his request to see it under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. His complaint to the Information Commissioner was rejected. He appealed successfully to the Information Tribunal. The initial question arising was whether the BBC was a “public authority” for the purposes of the request made by Mr Sugar with regard to the Balen Report. The applicable sections of the 2000 Act, in particular s 3(1) and 7(1) taken with Sch 1 specified which bodies were to be treated as public authorities in respect of which types of information: they were not stating that the BBC was a public authority for all purposes under the 2000 Act in relation to all information held by them, with certain exceptions or exemptions then imposed. It was only in respect of information held by the BBC otherwise than for the purposes of journalism, art or literature that the BBC was a public authority subject to the requirements of Pts I to V of the 2000 Act. The Information Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal and accordingly, the BBC’s further challenge to the correctness of the Information Tribunal’s further decision that the Balen Report was held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature fell away. Further, the decision of the Information Commissioner was a lawful and rational one, properly open to him on the material before him and so Mr Sugar’s claim for judicial review failed and was dismissed.
|
