UK: Freedom Of Information Act: Public Service Broadcasting

Last Updated: 4 June 2007
Article by Sarah Hanson

The High Court, in its first judgement on the Freedom of Information Act 2000("FOIA"), has considered a fundamental jurisdictional issue in addition to widening the scope of what information falls within the ambit of "journalism", to which the Act does not apply, giving public service broadcasters greater rights to keep information from being released.

In an action by Steven Sugar, the BBC succeeded in its appeal against the Information Tribunal’s decision that the BBC ought to have provided Sugar with the information he requested on a report regarding news coverage of the Middle East.

The FOIA requires public authorities to disclose information it holds if requested to do so by a member of the public. The BBC is deemed to be a "public authority" for the purposes of the FOIA other than "in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature".

The BBC rejected Sugar’s request for disclosure of the report on the grounds that it was of a journalistic nature and therefore not covered by the FOIA. Sugar complained to the Information Commissioner who agreed with the BBC and then appealed to the Information Tribunal who reversed the Information Commissioner’s decision.

On appeal by the BBC, the High Court held that the decision as to whether information was of a journalistic nature, and therefore outside the scope of the FOIA, was to be taken by the Information Commissioner on a case by case basis. Further, the High Court held that because the Information Commissioner had decided that the information in this case did not fall within the scope of the FOIA, Sugar’s appeal was therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Information Tribunal but one for judicial review proceedings. This removed a method of appeal for the public with respect to requests under the FOIA but brought good news to public service broadcasters because it reduces the likelihood of journalistic information in their hands being statutorily disclosed to the public.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

Under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled:

  • to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds the information; and
  • if so, to have that information communicated to him.

A "public authority" includes "any body which, any other person who, or the holder of any office which, is listed in Schedule 1 [to the FOIA]". The BBC is listed in Schedule 1 only "in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature". No definitions of "journalism", "art" or "literature" are contained in the FOIA.

In January 2005, Sugar requested from the BBC a copy of a report regarding the BBC's news coverage of the Middle East. The BBC rejected the request as it included information of a journalistic nature and was therefore not covered by FOIA.

Where an applicant is dissatisfied with the response of a public authority, they can apply to the Information Commissioner (Commissioner) for a decision under section 50 FOIA. Appeals against a decision notice issued by the Commissioner go to the Information Tribunal (Tribunal). Section 59 provides for appeals from the Tribunal to the High Court, and states that any party may appeal from the Tribunal's decision on a point of law.

Sugar appealed to the Tribunal against the Commissioner’s decision rather than seeking judicial review. The Tribunal ruled that it did have jurisdiction to hear Sugar's appeal and allowed the appeal finding that the Report was held for purposes other than those of "journalism, art or literature". The Tribunal drew a distinction between "functional journalism" and "the direction of policy, strategy and resources that provide the framework within which the operations of a public service broadcaster take place": functional journalism was covered by the Schedule 1 derogation, policy and strategy were not. Following the decision, the BBC appealed to the High Court under section 59 of the FOIA on two grounds, that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider Sugar's appeal (it should have been done by way of judicial review), and secondly, that the Tribunal's decision that the journalism derogation in Schedule 1 to the FOIA did not apply was wrong on the evidence, and was contrary to the provisions of the FOIA.

At the same time, the BBC also challenged the Tribunal's decision by judicial review proceedings and Sugar, in turn, issued judicial review proceedings challenging the Commissioner's original decision.

This is the first time that the High Court had considered the provisions of the FOIA. Davis J held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider Sugar's appeal from the Commissioner's decision and that he should have issued judicial review proceedings at that time.

Jurisdiction issue

Davis J, in interpreting the statutory provisions of the FOIA held that the BBC was a public authority subject to the requirements of Part I to V of the FOIA only in relation to information held by it for purposes other than "journalism, art or literature". The FOIA did not state that the BBC was a public authority for all purposes under the FOIA, with limited exceptions or exemptions then imposed.

The judge was in agreement with the BBC's arguments that since the Commissioner had found that, in relation to this case, the BBC was not a public authority under the FOIA there had been no "request" to a public authority, therefore, the Commissioner could not have issued a "decision notice" that could have been the subject of an appeal to the Tribunal.

This interpretation of the FOIA concerning appeals does fit in with section 50(2)(a) which sets out other circumstances, such as undue delay, where the Commissioner could decline to make a decision, resulting in judicial review being the only challenge the decision.

Judicial review

Sugar's key argument in his application for judicial review was that the Commissioner had made an error of law in finding that the Report fell within the derogation in Schedule 1. He argued that the Commissioner had interpreted the meaning of the phrase "for the purposes of journalism" too broadly and that the derogation should not apply to the management of journalism; that if there were multiple purposes for holding the information then it could not be held "for the purposes of journalism". Davis J said that this approach was too narrow, would be impractical and would not fit with an underlying purposes of the FOIA, to protect freedom of journalistic expression for public media authorities such as the BBC.

He agreed with the BBC's argument that journalism extended to (journalistic) activity, as well as (journalistic) product. The FOIA had deliberately not defined "held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature" and Davis J considered that it was an impossible and pointless exercise to judicially define such phrase. It was an assessment for the Commissioner to make on a case-by-case basis.

Davis J concluded that the Commissioner's decision was lawful and one properly open to him on the evidence before him and dismissed Sugar's criticisms of the decision.


This decision will be come as a relief to public service broadcasters such as the BBC as the scope of the Schedule 1 derogation has been kept wide. The applicability will be done by the Commissioner on a case by case basis, however, Davis J made it clear that the BBC would not be able to argue that all the information it held would fall within the derogation since its business related entirely to collecting and transmitting news.

The decision on the jurisdiction issue has made the process of appealing against the Commissioner’s decision more complex in certain circumstances. As the Commissioner found that the Schedule 1 derogation did apply, Sugar could not have appealed to the Tribunal and he should have issued judicial review proceedings. Had the Commissioner held that the derogation did not apply, the BBC would have been able to appeal to the Tribunal under section 57 of the FOIA, as there would have been a "decision notice" concerning a "public authority".

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 01/06/2007.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions