Balen Report

A number of people requested copies of the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The BBC rejected these requests on the grounds that the report fell under a derogation in the FOI Act: "Information held by the BBC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act only if it is 'held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature'."{{Cite web|last=Rosenbaum|first=Martin|date=27 March 2007|title=BBC – Open Secrets: The BBC v Steven Sugar: The Balen Report|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2007/03/the_bbc_v_steven_sugar_the_bal.html|access-date=22 January 2023|work= BBC News: Open Secrets}} The BBC contended that as an internal report aimed at checking its own standards of journalism, the report was held for purposes of journalism. The BBC's position was challenged by Jewish activist{{cite web|date=22 January 2007|title=Legal battle between Jewish activist and BBC|url=http://www.ejpress.org/article/13214|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080525120108/http://www.ejpress.org/article/13214|archive-date=2008-05-25|access-date=15 May 2021|website=European Jewish Press}} and consultant commercial solicitor at London firm Forsters,{{cite web|last=Rayner|first=Jonathan|date=19 February 2009|title=Steven Sugar takes freedom of information to House of Lords|url=http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyer-in-the-news/steven-sugar-takes-freedom-information-house-lords|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120219212541/http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyer-in-the-news/steven-sugar-takes-freedom-information-house-lords|archive-date=19 February 2012|access-date=15 May 2021|website=The Law Society Gazette}} Steven Sugar, who appealed initially to the Information Commissioner (who ruled in favour of the BBC) and then to the Information Tribunal (who ruled that the report was not held for purposes of journalism).

In 2007 the BBC appealed against the decision of the Information Tribunal to the High Court{{cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.com/article/bbc-asks-court-to-block-israel-report-gg6rtqvljp8 |title=BBC asks court to block Israel report|author= Herman, Michael|work=The Times|date= March 27, 2007|access-date =21 January 2023}}{{cite news|url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/archive-content/bbc-begins-key-high-court-foi-appeal|date = 17 May 2007|title=BBC begins key High Court FoI appeal|work = Press Gazette|access-date =21 January 2023}} on two grounds: that the Information Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Information Commissioner in this case and that, even if it did, its decision was flawed as a matter of law. The High Court decided that the Tribunal did lack jurisdiction and rejected Mr Sugar's challenge to the Commissioner's decision. The High Court did not consider the BBC's second ground of appeal. Mr Sugar's appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's decision on the jurisdiction question was dismissed but his subsequent appeal to the House of Lords (then the highest court in the UK) was allowed by 3 votes to 2 on 11 February 2009. Thus the Tribunal's decision in Mr Sugar's favour was reinstated.{{cite news|url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/lords-rule-balen-report-was-wrongly-blocked-under-foi/|title=Lords rule Balen report was wrongly blocked under FoI|work= Press Gazette|date = 11 February 2009|access-date=20 January 2023}}{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/11/balen-report-bbc-timeline|title=Timeline: The battle to make BBC publish Balen report into Middle East conflict coverage|author=Hirsch, Afua|author-link=Afua Hirsch|work=The Guardian|date = 11 February 2009|access-date=18 January 2023}} The BBC retained its second ground of appeal and the case returned to the High Court on 2 October 2009, when Mr Justice Irwin ruled in the BBC's favour. His decision was that the information requested was held 'significantly' for the purposes of journalism and therefore was exempt under the Freedom of Information Act.{{cite news|author=Holmwood|first=Leigh|date=2009-10-02|title=BBC wins legal battle over report on Middle East coverage|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/02/bbc-report-middle-east/|access-date=2021-05-15|work=The Guardian|accessdate=}}{{Cite web|last=Rosenbaum|first=Martin|date=2009-10-02|title=BBC – Open Secrets: High Court rulings on the BBC and FOI|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/10/high_court_rulings_on_the_bbc.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160330085726/http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/10/high_court_rulings_on_the_bbc.html|archive-date=2016-03-30|access-date=21 January 2023|work= BBC News: Open Secrets}} On 23 June 2010, at the Court of Appeal the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Moses and Lord Justice Munby upheld that decision and rejected Mr Sugar's appeal.

After Mr Sugar's death in January that year,{{Cite news |date=14 February 2011 |title=Lawyer who challenged BBC dies at 60 |work=The Jewish Chronicle |url=https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/lawyer-who-challenged-bbc-dies-at-60-1.21227 |access-date=20 January 2023}} an appeal by his widow, Fiona Paveley, was heard on 23 November 2011 at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which had assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords in 2009. On 15 February 2012 the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. All but one judge dismissed it on the basis that, even if information is held only partly for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, as it was in this case, it is outside the scope of FOIA. Lord Wilson would have dismissed it on the basis that, if information is held predominantly for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, it is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act and that the Balen Report was held predominantly for those purposes.{{Cite web|date=2012-02-15|title = Press Summary: Sugar (Deceased) (Represented by Fiona Paveley) (Appellant) v British Broadcasting Corporation (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 4|url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2010-0145-press-summary.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210514232813/https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2010-0145-press-summary.pdf|archive-date=2021-05-14|access-date=20 January 2023|publisher=Supreme Court of the United Kingdom}}

In May 2021, after the BBC published the Dyson inquiry, Lord Hayward and Baroness Barran of the House of Lords called on the BBC to release the Balen Report.{{Cite news|title=Tory peer urges BBC to publish Balen report into Israeli-Palestinian coverage|language=en-GB|work=Belfast Telegraph|author= Green, Alex|url=https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/news/tory-peer-urges-bbc-to-publish-balen-report-into-israeli-palestinian-coverage-40467443.html|date = 25 May 2021|access-date=20 January 2023}}

In August 2012, the politics website The Commentator reported a Freedom of Information request they had made which indicated that the BBC had spent £330,000 in legal costs. This figure does not include BBC in-house legal staff time or Value Added Tax.Rocker, Simon (30 August 2012}. [https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/bbc-spent-330-000-supressing-balen-report-1.35530"BBC spent £330,000 suppressing Balen report"], The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 23 January 2023.

The BBC's press release following the High Court judgment included the following statement:

:"The BBC's action in this case had nothing to do with the fact that the Balen report was about the Middle East – the same approach would have been taken whatever area of news output was covered."{{cite press release|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/04_april/27/balen.shtml|title= Balen report: BBC successful in High Court challenge|date =27 April 2007|publisher= BBC|access-date =21 January 2023}}

The claimant, Mr Sugar, was reported after his earlier success in the House of Lords in BBC v Sugar{{cite web|author= Scully, B L|work= The WLR Daily|title=British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and another|url=http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2009/HLPC/Feb0.3.html|url-status=dead|accessdate=June 16, 2008|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090731120439/http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2009/HLPC/Feb0.3.html|archivedate=July 31, 2009}} as saying:

:"It is sad that the BBC felt it necessary to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money fighting for three years to try to load the system against those requesting information from it. I am very pleased that the House of Lords has ruled that such obvious unfairness is not the result of the Act."{{cite news|author=Hirsch|first=Afua|author-link=Afua Hirsch|date=2009-02-11|title=Lawyer hails Lords BBC Middle East report ruling as a victory|newspaper=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/11/lawyer-hails-lords-bbc-middle-east|access-date=2021-05-15|accessdate=}}

However, the High Court then ruled that the BBC was not required to disclose the Balen Report, and in spite of appeals by Mr Sugar and, after his death, his wife, both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court agreed with that ruling, thus clarifying the law applying to any similar reports in the future.

• Freedom of Information Act 2000

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite news|work= The Daily Telegraph|date = 15 October 2006|author1=Hastings, Chris |author2=Jones, Beth |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531443/BBC-mounts-court-fight-to-keep-critical-report-secret.html |title= BBC mounts court fight to keep 'critical' report secret|access-date =22 January 2023}}
• {{cite web|date = 16 October 2006|website =Honest Reporting UK|url=http://www.honestreporting.co.uk/articles/critiques/BBC_Something_to_Hide$.asp|title= BBC: Something to Hide?|archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20070822012119/http://www.honestreporting.co.uk/articles/critiques/BBC_Something_to_Hide$.asp|access-date =21 January 2023|archive-date =22 August 2007}}

Category:2004 documents

Category:BBC controversies

Category:Freedom of information in the United Kingdom

Category:Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Category:Media bias controversies involving Israel