Barnie Choudhury devoted five years to exposing what he describes as misconduct in the judiciary, and particularly in the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) for England and Wales. He wrote more than 20 stories, made a forensic tool of the Freedom of Information (FOI) process, and became the go-to confidante for whistle-blowing judges.
Today, however, he awaits the judgment of an Information Tribunal that will decide whether he must pay over £14,000 in costs for his ‘unreasonable behaviour’. He is supported by the NUJ, and lawyers Jacob Meagher and Alexander Hutton KC working pro bono. Should the case go against him, he says he risks personal ruin.
His journey from tip-off to tribunal is a twisty one. It is a cautionary story for those who pursue FOI requests beyond initial rejection and casts light on troubling potential conflicts of interest in the governance of judicial appointments.
In 2020, Choudhury, a BBC veteran of 24 years, was approached by a stranger at a private dinner party. “I’m a judge, can I trust you?” asked his interlocutor. Nodding his assent, the journalist was promised “a can of worms you won’t believe”.
During his mission to expose “institutional racism, bullying, secretive vetting methods, and featherbedded exit packages”, Choudhury submitted several FOIs to the JAC – the body that appoints judges in England and Wales. One request sought the terms under which Dr Richard Jarvis had left the post of chief executive of the organisation. The initial request was refused, and an appeal to the Information Commissioner was also rejected. Choudhury was not surprised. Experience taught him that success with FOIs often came in anticipating how they would fare in subsequent appeals, and so it proved in this case.
A first-tier tribunal held in his favour on two of his requests for information. Among other things the JAC was ordered to give up documents pertaining to the end of Jarvis’s employment. What came back was described in court as “thin gruel”, however, and did not even include a letter setting out the date and terms on which Jarvis’s engagement would end. This led to an exasperated exchange, in which Choudhury accepts his language was ‘robust’. “My job isn’t to be nice to civil servants and lawyers”, he now says. “It is to get to the truth on behalf of those who are too timid to speak up. Sometimes that requires strong language.”
Frustrated at how little information he had received, despite the tribunal decision in his favour, Choudhury applied for the JAC to be found in contempt of court. It was this action, and its consequences that it is now claimed were “unreasonable”.
The Judges in this case, James Armstrong Holmes and Judge Kathryn Saward, are now placed in a difficult position, asked to rule on the conduct of the very body that appointed them. In addition, Choudhury has worked as a freelance for Eastern Eye, a sparsely resourced news site aimed at British Asian readers. Judgment against him will drain his own bank balance. “I would have to run some kind of crowdfunder to survive,” he says.
Given this, and the clear risk to free expression, even at this late stage, it would clearly be better, as NUJ General Secretary Laura Davison has argued, for the JAC to reconsider its position.
Just a month ago the government trailed proposals to reduce the volume of FOIs granted. As the law stands, FOIs can be refused if the responding body believes that the cost of reply would be more than £600 for a government department and £450 in other organisations. Costs are calculated on a notional staff cost of £25 per hour. It is believed that the government wants to reduce these cost ceilings.
The annual statistics for 2025, published this week, record 94,526 requests made to UK government bodies, a 14 per cent increase on the preceding year. Of these, 87 per cent were granted within the allowed time, up from 76 per cent the year before.
Although an increasing volume of applications occurred across almost all government departments, the most significant driver of growth has been the transfer of old military service records to the national archive. The improvements in responses despite growing demand is impressive. Perhaps some of the resources and know-how deployed to achieve this could be beneficially diverted to the JAC?
Against this backdrop, the narrowing of potential scrutiny of public administration that ministers are clearly considering is of broader concern. For journalists, lowering the allowable FOI costs would mean fewer stories. The real issue, however, is that it would cloak anew the work of civil servants. However effectively they work, setting more of their work as beyond public inquiry would corrode trust at a time when that is a precious resource.
So too would the punishment of Barnie Choudhury. A finding against him would be a marker for any who dare to question work undertaken on our behalf and at our expense. Probe too far and risk a prohibitive bill.
Perhaps the responsibility for all who value media freedom should be to celebrate Freedom of Information a little more. However contested the record of Tony Blair’s governments, this millennium statute has unequivocally improved public administration and the way it is understood. Long may this function endure.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
