David Keighley v (1) Information Commissioner (2) British Broadcasting Corporation
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge West |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] UKUT 228 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 16 October 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Information rights - Freedom of information - absolute exemptions,West,M |
David Keighley v (1) Information Commissioner
(2) British Broadcasting Corporation
[2023] UKUT 228 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. UA-2022-000648-GIA
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
BEFORE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEST
Appellant DAVID KEIGHLEY
and
Respondents (1) THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
(2) THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF A TRIBUNAL
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
Decision date: 6 September 2023
Decided after a hearing on 25 May 2023
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEST
ON APPEAL FROM
Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
Tribunal Case No: EA/2021/0220
Tribunal Hearing Date: 2/2/2022
David Keighley v (1) Information Commissioner (2) British Broadcasting Corporation
[2023] UKUT 228 (AAC)
Keighley v (1) ICO (2) BBC UA-2022-000648-GIA
2
DETERMINATION
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
(Information Rights) (which sat on 2 February 2022) dated 7 February 2022
under file reference EA/2021/0220 does not involve an error of law. The
appeal against that decision is dismissed.
This decision is made under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007.
Representation: Mr Thomas Roe KC, counsel, for the Appellant
(instructed by McCarthy Denning)
Miss Zoe Gannon, counsel, for the First Respondent
(instructed by the ICO)
Mr Jason Pobjoy, counsel, for the Second Respondent
(instructed by the BBC)
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellant is Mr David Keighley (!”Mr Keighley”). The First Respondent
is the Information Commissioner (“the ICO”). The Second Respondent is the
British Broadcasting Corporation (“the BBC”).
2. This is an appeal, with my permission, against the decision of the First-
tier Tribunal (Judge Sophie Buckley, Tribunal Members Kate Grimley Evans
and Paul Taylor) which sat to consider the matter at a video hearing on 2
February 2022 and reached its decision on 7 February 2022. The Tribunal
dismissed the appeal against the ICO’s decision notice IC-76825-W4T0 of
2 August 2021 which held that any information held by the BBC within the
scope of paragraphs 1 and 8 of the request would be held for the purposes of
David Keighley v (1) Information Commissioner (2) British Broadcasting Corporation
[2023] UKUT 228 (AAC)
Keighley v (1) ICO (2) BBC UA-2022-000648-GIA
3
journalism, art or literature and would therefore fall outside the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”). The ICO did not require the BBC to take any
steps.
The Factual Background
3. As the Tribunal explained at the outset of its decision:
“3. Since 2010 the BBC has annually commissioned the
independent research and polling company, IPSOS
MORI, to conduct a representative survey of the UK
public on their perception of BBC standards (including,
but not limited to, impartiality) in BBC output.
4. The survey in question in this appeal is a 2018 IPSOS
MORI survey (‘the Survey”). The results relevant to this
appeal appear on p 19 of the BBC Group Annual Report
and Accounts, which reports that 52% of UK adults think
that the BBC is effective at providing news and current
affairs that is impartial. It includes a pie chart which
shows that 44% of 1,829 UK adults who follow the
news, April-May 2019 answered ‘the BBC’ to the
question ‘Of all the news sources (TV, radio, newspaper,
magazine, website, app or social media) which one
source are you most likely to turn to for news you trust
the most?”
The Request
4. On 17 June 2020 Mr Keighley made a request to the BBC:
“I refer to page 19 of the BBC Group Annual Report and
Accounts 2018/2019 giving the results for several survey
questions showing that 52% of people asked think that
the BBC provides impartial news and that 44% turn to
the BBC if they want impartial news. The source for both
is given as IPSOS MORI. Please can you provide
information and all relevant documents relating to the
following for both the 52% and 44% results:
1. A copy of and details of the brief and instructions that
were given to IPSOS MORI or any relevant meeting
notes when they were commissioned to carry out the
survey that led to the above two results and any
underlying contracts;
2. How the audience sample was chosen and what were
the criteria to include or exclude survey participants in
each case;
To continue reading
Request your trial