Former BBC journalist and British Journalism Award nominee Barnie Choudhury will not have to pay incurred costs of £14,270.70 to an appointment body for judges over a Freedom of Information Act request, a court has ruled.
The Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC), an independent body responsible for selecting candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, filed a costs application against Choudhury in October 2025.
The JAC argued Choudhury “acted unreasonably” in pursuing enforcement action after it failed to comply with a tribunal order to disclose information requested in an FOI.
[Read more: Judges body hits journalist with £14k costs bill for pursuing FOI request]
Choudhury has written 23 investigative articles for Eastern Eye in his campaign against judicial secrecy since 2020, alleging bullying, misogyny and misconduct in the judicial appointments process.
After threatening the JAC with contempt of court, Choudhury’s reporting led to the judges body disclosing confidential recruitment materials.
Choudhury withdrew the action in September 2025 once he had enough information to continue reporting, “even though the JAC had not fully complied with the decision notice”, he said.
Choudhury was shortlisted for the Public Service Journalism award at the British Journalism Awards in 2025 for his work.
Following a first-tier tribunal hearing on 29 April, the JAC’s application for recovery of its own legal costs against Choudhary was refused.
However, the tribunal found Choudhury to have acted unreasonably “in the conduct of the proceedings”, meaning his application for the JAC to pay his legal costs has to be withdrawn.
Choudhury application for costs amounted to £15,510, but this is being absorbed by his pro bono legal team.
Contempt of court ‘only available means’ for Choudhury request
The court was “satisfied” that Choudhury “held genuine belief” that the JAC failed to comply with the terms of his request, and his threatening of contempt of court was “the only available means for him to seek enforcement of that order”.
“His view that the JAC was still withholding information from him was based upon his own experiences as an investigative journalist in seeking information from public authorities, and perhaps a degree of journalistic instinct, whether rightly or wrongly, was involved in the adoption of that position,” the ruling stated.
“The fact that he had the benefit of ad hoc legal representation at various points of the proceedings, did not, in our view, serve to extinguish his belief that the JAC was in breach of the order.”
The court also found that in withdrawing his application for contempt of court “negated any need for there to be a hearing in relation to that matter, which would otherwise have caused the JAC, and himself, to have incurred further expense”.
Allegations against JAC ‘unfounded’
The court ruled that Choudhury’s allegations against the JAC were “serious in nature, alleging dishonesty, impropriety, misconduct and racism”, and these were “not supported by evidence and are therefore considered to be unfounded”.
“We do not consider that a reasonable person in the Respondent’s position would have conducted themselves in the manner he did,” the ruling stated.
“The respondent is of course an investigative journalist, who seeks information from public authorities, and in this instance the JAC, to enable him to write articles about issues which he considers should be placed into the public domain. However, whatever his motives, it does not provide him with an excuse for acting unreasonably.”
Choudhury would have faced ‘financial ruin’
Speaking to Press Gazette before the hearing, Choudhury said he hadn’t written in over a month because “it’s had such a bad mental effect” on him.
Following the court ruling, he said he was “grateful to the judges for seeing past the bluster of the JAC who tried to muzzle an independent investigative journalist from doing his job”.
“Make no mistake, if this decision had gone against me, not only would I have faced financial ruin, it would have sent a message to all of journalism – don’t do your job, be the mouthpiece of those with endless taxpayers’ money, who never face scrutiny, because we tell you what to do, and you’d better not go against us, criticise us or ever show that we’re wrong.
“My thanks to my legal counsel, Alex Hutton KC, Jacob Meagher and Neil Davies, and all the judges, barristers and solicitors and those who sent me private messages of support. My legal team spent hours and hours poring through documents and legal precedents. And they did it pro bono – free – because they believe in the freedom of the press.”
The case has also raised concerns at the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), which warned of SLAPP-style intimidation of journalists.
SLAPPs, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are lawsuits targeting journalists, news organisations, whistleblowers or other groups publishing information in the public interest that are widely regarded as meritless, abusive and aimed at bullying them into silence.
[Read more: Government-led task force launched to protect journalism from SLAPPs]
Choudhury added: “I must thank my union, the NUJ, which, once I’d told them about my case, sprang into action and offered me unassailable support. That’s why I say to every student I teach at the University of East Anglia, join the NUJ – it’s an army at your side which will protect you.
“To Dom Ponsford at Press Gazette, Dawn Alford at the Society of Editors, Catherine Baksi at The Times – we need to keep shining a light in the darkest corners and reminding journalists that we’re here to serve the public without fear if favour.
“Finally, MPs on the media select committee and the justice select committee – stop sitting on your hands. Your job is to scrutinise. So why are you failing in your job? Why aren’t you asking how dare an institutionally racist body tries to intimidate journalists? How dare the JAC waste hundreds of thousands of tax payer pounds acting like the mob in trying to silence journalists? Why aren’t you asking me to give evidence before you, so we can unveil this sham?”
Reporters ‘should not be deterred’ from public-interest stories
Dawn Alford, chief executive of the Society of Editors, said the group welcomes the Tribunal’s decision and its recognition of “the role journalists play in holding institutions to account”.
“This ruling is 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,” she said.
“Freedom of information and open justice are vital pillars of democratic accountability… 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.”
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
