When BBC Cost Information Is Not Disclosable Under FOIA: What The Choudhury v Information Commissioner And Another Case Means In Practice

If you ask a public body for information, you might reasonably expect a clear answer. But when the organisation you are dealing with is the BBC, it is not always that simple. A recent Tribunal decision shows just how easily a request for what looks like straightforward financial information can be refused if it is considered too closely connected to the BBC’s journalistic work. For anyone thinking about making a Freedom of Information request or challenging a refusal, this case is a useful reminder that the detail of the law can matter just as much as the detail of the request itself.

What was the case about?

Professor Barnie Choudhury asked the BBC for a year-by-year and station-by-station breakdown of the costs of running the BBC’s “Make a Difference Awards” from 2020 onwards. He argued that this was essentially financial and operational information about event hosting, rather than material held for journalism, art or literature. The BBC refused the request, saying that the information fell outside the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because it was held for journalistic purposes. The Information Commissioner agreed, and the matter went on appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

The legal issue turned on the special wording in Schedule 1 to FOIA, which applies to the BBC only in relation to information held for purposes other than journalism, art or literature. The Tribunal revisited the Supreme Court’s decision in Sugar v BBC and, in particular, the idea that the protection is intended to allow public service broadcasters to operate without being forced to reveal material closely connected to their output, which in turn would put them at a disadvantage compared to their non-public broadcasting peers. As the Tribunal noted, the question is whether there is a “sufficiently direct link” between the information being held and the BBC’s journalistic purposes.

Why did the Tribunal dismiss the appeal?

The Tribunal accepted evidence from the BBC that the awards were not simply stand-alone community events. They were recorded, edited and used across local radio, national television and social media and the stories generated by the awards formed part of the BBC’s wider output. On that basis, the costs of staging the events, including venue and hospitality costs, were treated as part of the production process. In the Tribunal’s words, the information was “intrinsically linked with the production of an event which produces output content for the BBC”.

Importantly, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the court should ask what the dominant purpose of the information was. That approach had been part of the debate in Sugar, but it was not the majority view of the Supreme Court. Instead, if the information is held for journalistic purposes at all, and there is a direct enough connection, that may be enough to place it outside FOIA. The Tribunal also held that the BBC had no duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 FOIA in this case, because that duty only applies where FOIA itself applies to the information requested.

Why does this matter beyond the BBC?

Although this decision is about the BBC and FOIA, it illustrates a broader point: rights of access to information are powerful, but they are not unlimited, and their scope depends heavily on the legal framework involved. FOIA, subject access rights under data protection law and rights to request documents in litigation all operate differently. It is therefore essential to identify the correct route from the outset. A request which looks sensible on paper can still fail if it is aimed at the wrong regime or if the information falls within a statutory carve-out.

From a practical perspective, this case is also a reminder that how a request is framed matters. If the information sought has a close operational connection to editorial output, journalism or creative work, a requester may face an uphill struggle. That does not mean disclosure is never possible, but it does mean that careful analysis is needed before a request is sent, particularly where the target organisation has a special statutory position. In some cases, there may be alternative ways to obtain what is needed. In others, the better course may be to narrow the request or rethink the purpose behind it.