Judges Body Hits Journalist with £14k Costs Bill for Pursuing FOI Request

Why It Matters

If upheld, the JAC’s costs claim could create a de‑facto SLAPP threat, discouraging journalists from using FOI requests to hold powerful institutions accountable, thereby eroding media freedom and public oversight.

Key Takeaways

• JAC seeks £14,270.70 (~$18,000) costs from journalist Barnie Choudhury.
• Costs stem from Choudhury’s FOI pursuit and withdrawn contempt action.
• NUJ warns the case could create SLAPP‑style chilling effect on reporting.
• Tribunal hearing set for 29 April 2026 in London’s First‑tier Tribunal.
• Case highlights lack of oversight on public bodies’ legal spending.

Pulse Analysis

The Judicial Appointments Commission, the independent body that selects judges for England and Wales, has moved to recover more than £14,000 in legal costs from investigative reporter Barnie Choudhury. Choudhury’s series of FOI‑driven articles, published in Eastern Eye, exposed alleged bullying, misogyny and opaque recruitment practices within the JAC. After threatening the commission with a contempt of court action, he withdrew the claim when sufficient documents were disclosed, but the JAC subsequently filed a costs application, arguing his pursuit was unreasonable. The matter will be heard before a First‑tier Tribunal in London on 29 April.

The National Union of Journalists has flagged the case as a potential SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), warning that the financial burden could deter journalists from probing public institutions. Legal experts note that while public bodies are entitled to recover legitimate costs, using such mechanisms to penalise whistle‑blowing reporters is rare and raises questions about proportionality. If the tribunal sides with the JAC, it could set a precedent that emboldens other agencies to pursue cost recovery as a tool to silence scrutiny, amplifying concerns about press freedom in the UK.

Beyond the immediate parties, the dispute highlights a broader accountability gap: public bodies wield substantial taxpayer‑funded legal resources with limited external oversight. Critics argue that without clear safeguards, cost‑recovery actions can become de‑facto punitive measures against journalists. The episode may accelerate calls for anti‑SLAPP legislation, already gaining traction among media organisations, to protect the public interest function of investigative reporting. Stakeholders will be watching the tribunal’s decision closely, as it could shape the legal landscape for FOI‑driven journalism and the balance between transparency and institutional self‑preservation.