High Court rulings on the BBC and FOI
Two High Court decisions today have narrowed the range of information which the BBC (and some other public bodies) could be forced to disclose to requesters under the Freedom of Information Act.
One involves the long-running case fought by Steven Sugar for access to the "Balen report", an internal analysis of the BBC's coverage of the Middle East. The other relates to financial information about certain programmes.
As I've discussed on numerous occasions before, the FOI Act only applies to the BBC "in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature".
This has led to much legal argument about information which is held for a variety of purposes, partly covered by this exclusion clause or "derogation" and partly not (for example, programme budgets kept both for journalistic and for financial management purposes).
Until now this legal dispute has centred mainly on the question of which is the predominant purpose for keeping the material, for that to be the criterion to determine whether or not it falls inside or outside the requirements of the FOI Act.
But Mr Justice Irwin ruled today that this "predominant purpose test" is wrong in law, and in fact information falls outside the FOI Act if it is held to any significant extent for one of the purposes mentioned in the derogation.
In the key passage of both judgements, the judge said:
"The BBC has no obligation to disclose information which they hold to any significant extent for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, whether or not the information is also held for other purposes. The words do not mean that the information is disclosable if it is held for purposes distinct from journalism, art or literature, whilst it is also held to any significant extent for those listed purposes. If the information is held for mixed purposes, including to any significant extent the purposes listed in the Schedule or one of them, then the information is not disclosable."
The judge decided that the BBC was under no obligation to divulge the information at issue (although he did add that in these cases even on the basis of the predominant purpose test he would have ruled that the BBC was within its rights not to disclose the material).
These decisions also have similar implications for other public bodies which have a derogation in the Freedom of Information Act, such as Channel 4, the Bank of England, the Competition Commission and the Traffic Commissioners.
A 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Information freed by an Act,
Our need to know remains intact,
Until the small print says it's not,
How much freedom have we really got?
Complain about this comment
Disgusting ruling, but then in a country in which we are forced to pay an unfair license fee for a bloated corporation I am not surprised.
The BBC Management should hold its collective head in shame.
If the BBC has nothing to hide then publish the report, anything less just makes many people think that the BBC is refusing to publish the report as it shows clear evidence of bias against Israel in its Middle East reporting.
Complain about this comment
As I commented on this very blog in Oct 2007 to do with this ongoing case:
"By the way, as the BBC have stated that the content of the report really isn't that bad, and they are just fighting disclosure to 'clarify a technical issue', once all the legal arguments are finished (one way or another), and the 'technical issue' is 'clarified', will the BBC choose to make the report public anyway?"
So, some BBC bigwig, 2 years ago, said they were only fighting this to clarify a technical legal issue, and that the content of the report really wasn't that bad.
So, I reiterate: now that the technical issue has been ultimately clarified, will the BBC voluntarily choose to disclose the report?
I doubt it...
Complain about this comment
So the BBC spend the money, we are forced to pay for license, as they see fit, then decide to keep the results of how much they spend on what, and the results from what they spend it on i.e. "Balen report", a secret!
Complain about this comment
The British Broadcasting Corporation is very obviously, fatally flawed.
The British public, through their licence fees, finance this once great instition, and presently receive very poor value for money.
An annual audit should be made public and include every category of expenditure, from the executives down to the lowest paid employee and also include overseas assignments.
The political coverage is woeful, with luck, a quite probable change of Goverment will also herald a root and branch review of every BBC activity.
Ever tried complaining about a particular issue? Give it a try, don't hold your breath and never be surprised or dismayed by by the outcome.
What a rotten organisation!!
Complain about this comment
We know why there's this big fuss, it's another attempt to protect Israel. We allow the heroes of Gaza to scream "anti-semitism" at our journalists and at international observers. Remember the attacks on France 2 and its journalists over the killing of 12 year-old Muhammed al-Durrah. That was in Sept 2001 and 8 years later, agents of Israel are still trying to get the director and a cameraman sacked.
Examine that al-Durrah case more carefully - it practically amounts to a blood-libel on the Palestinans, whereby they are supposed to have killed one of their own children (something never known before or since). In fact, everyone should know (but doesn't) that the Israelis went into Gaza and the West Bank with their guns blazing (1.3 million bullets fired in the first few days according to Israeli newspapers), killing 85 Palestinian children before a single Israeli child died. (That figure comes from the Israeli B'tselem since, as we know, only the perpetrators can be quoted in this game).
So it's not surprising that detailed analysis of who said what at the BBC cannot safely be put into the public arena, we'd have no journalists left.
Not that we (or Israel) is losing out, the BBC has already published it's 2006 report on its coverage, which showed a clear bias in favour of Israel. (It's at http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/panel_report_final.pdf - the pro-Israel bias is white-washed in the introduction, you have to go to section 4.7 to see the situation).
So bad is this problem of BBC bias in the Middle East that a majority of British youths think that Palestinians are "the settlers" and Israelis are the victims of "Palestinian settler violence". The Palestinians have suffered 100 Kristallnachts and the cover-up is still in full swing.
Complain about this comment
Can someone please tell me what Gulf Wide is talking about? These rulings relate only tangentially to Israel, and even then in only one of the two separate rulings which were delivered on Friday.
Yet, Gulf Wide has crow-barred it open for the tiniest glimmer of something Israel-related. Why is that?
It also does not have any blinking sense. "Protecting Israel" would have involved the forced publication of the Balen Report, but this has been refused. Furthermore, if we examine the al-Durrah more carefully (and ask why it was mentioned), we find that the BBC was reporting on a legal ruling by French courts after it had been demonstrated that the substantial point of the footage had been fabricated. Furthermore, there was no suggestion that Palestinian Arabs deliberately, or even accidentially kill their own children [1] - the conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence that the boy EVEN WAS DEAD.
If Gulf Wide knew anything about the blood libel calumny, s/he would know that it related to the killing of or lack of compassion for *other* people's children, not their own. Carol Churchill's modern mystery play, Seven Jewish Children, has been alleged to promote this.
The one about being willing to sacrifice Jewish life to further a political game is entirely different, and can be seen in the Stalin-era play, Perdition.
But, wackily enough, back to the actual theme of this post. Martin, you can insist as much as you like that this is in keeping with the letter of the FOI-A, but it remains that the BBC is being thought not to be applying the same standards to itself as it demands of others. Such as John Humphrys stammering when asked about his salary during the MPs' expenses scandal, or pursuing the relative insignificance of something Andrew Gilligan said at 6 am and demanding complete transparency of information used for 'journalistic' purposes by in Downing Street (i.e. spin).
It's pretty poor show to claim that the cost of an episode of East Enders or how much will be spent on foreign junkets by staff of BBC Northern Ireland Spotlight programme is sensitive information. What did for the sense of entitlement, and contempt for hoi polloi holding them to account exibitted by Westminster should do for you as well.
[1] Although, there have been cases of terrorists being willing to use children as mules, as with the case of Hussam Abdu tricked into carrying explosives. Orla Guerin described this as "cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes".
Complain about this comment
I meant, Orla Guerin (whose forename is Hebrew for foreskin) described the *Israeli* response as such. Goodness knows why the Balen Report was commissioned.
Complain about this comment
I think this is more aptly termed the Freedom for Secrets Act rather than the FOI, the BBC are toosecretive for a public body.
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574?thread=5976819&latest=1#p86738922
I have been trying to find out why the BBC have run down their messageboards and prevent a free exchange of views between TV Taxpayers on the important matters of the day.
The BBC used the same derogation to refuse to supply any information leaving one with the impression that the BBC thinks messageboards constitute are, literature or journalism, or perhaps all three?
Complain about this comment
I really don't think there should be a journalistic exception at all. Certainly sources should be protected, but beyond that, why should things remain secret?
The culture of secrecy is as much about protecting bad/biased journalism as it is about protecting embarrassingly large pay checks. For example, if BBC journalists are instructed not to use the term "mercenary" (in favour of Private Military Contractor, a term preferred by the mercenary industry itself), should the public not be able to get that fact exposed?
Lord Reith, founder of the BBC, infamously said "They know they can trust us not to be really impartial."
He was right. Take a look at at Robert Parsons' BBC Report "Eyewitness: Grozny's ruined lives" to witness the fist shaking anger that is only permitted in the case of official enemies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/668080.stm
He asks what right the Russians have to bomb Grozny. Can you imagine the BBC asking what right the US had to bomb Fallujah? It's almost laughable.
Contrast Parsons' report with a report on a similar situation involving an ally. e.g. The US bombing/siege of Fallujah.
Fixing the problem of Falluja
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3989639.stm
The title itself "Fixing the problem of Falluja" probably tells you all you need to know about the massive difference in tone between the articles.
Although comparing reports on enemies and allies like this demolishes any BBC claims of impartiality, there are no doubt many memos floating around the BBC that would be even more damning. We will never get to see though, as long as the BBC is allowed to remain virtually exempt from the FOI act.
Complain about this comment
So, let me get this ruling straight... If the BBC (management) decide that something would be too embarassing to them to provide under an FOI request all they have to do is declare that that information / document etc. *may* be used for journalistic purposes - without any bona fide intention to do so - and voila! no need to provide it.
Hmm.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS