The law lords have today ruled that a freedom of information campaigner can continue his legal battle to force the BBC to publish an internal report on its coverage of the Middle East conflict.

In their judgment today the five law lords ruled three to two in favour of overturning a previous high court judgment, which itself overruled the decision of the Information Tribunal from August 2006 that the report should be published.

The case now returns to the high court for further argument before a final decision is made.

Steven Sugar, a London solicitor, has been campaigning for the past four years for the BBC to publish the report, which was written in 2004 by the former editor of the Nine o'Clock News, Malcolm Balen.

The report examined the organisation's radio and television output on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was originally commissioned by the BBC's then director of news, Richard Sambrook.

Critics of the corporation want the study published, convinced that it will disclose evidence of an anti-Israel bias in its reporting of the conflict.

The protracted freedom of information dispute has lasted four years and reputedly cost the corporation at least £200,000.

Today Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury backed Sugar's appeal, while Lord Hoffman and Baroness Hale of Richmond were in the minority in dismissing it.

Publication of the Balen report has been pushed higher up the political agenda after the corporation's decision last month not to broadcast the Disaster Emergency Committee's appeal on behalf of victims of the latest invasion of Gaza.

The BBC initially declined to hand over the 20,000-word report after Sugar submitted a freedom of information request in 2005. The BBC argued that under the Freedom of Information Act the corporation is exempt from disclosing information purposes of "journalism, art or literature" and that the Balen report was intended as an internal review to help shape future policy on its Middle East coverage, and not intended for publication.

Undeterred by repeated rebuffs, Sugar, a commercial solicitor, pursued his Balen report FoI request with the information commissioner, who agreed with the BBC that it should not have to disclose material relating purely to its journalism.

However, Sugar successfully appealed the decision of the information commissioner at a later information tribunal.

The BBC then took the case to the high court, where a judge concluded in March 2007 that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make its ruling. The court of appeal subsequently upheld that conclusion.

Sugar had vowed to take his case to the European court of human rights if defeated in the Lords.

A BBC spokesman said: "We went to court to clarify the law over the jurisdiction of the information tribunal and the application of the Freedom of Information Act to public service broadcasters. The BBC's decision to appeal had nothing to do with the fact that the Balen report was about the Middle East. It just happened to be the first to go before the courts.

"The Law Lords have not ruled that the Balen report should be released. What they have done is clarify the law around the jurisdiction of the information tribunal. Public service broadcasters like the BBC are not required to disclose information under the Freedom of Information Act if it is for the purposes of 'journalism, art and literature'. The law lords have ordered that the issue of what is meant by 'journalism, art and literature' in this instance is now a matter for the High Court."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think the report should definitely be published. The reason they don't want it published is because FOR ONCE something that isn't pro-Israel would be put out into the public. But the publication of this is extremely necessary. Because all the media shows us is how Israel is the victim. We need information from both sides of this issue.


Do you think the Balen report should be released and published? Does BBC have the right to retain this information?