Cefyn Jones v The Information Commissioner

1. This decision relates to an appeal brought by the Appellant p ursuant to section 57 Freedom of Information Act 2000 . It is in respect of a decision notice issued by the Respondent on 29 May 2025 with reference IC-353738-X0W6. It concerns a request for information made to the British Broadcasting Corporation on 5 November 2024 and the reply that if they held information within the scope of the request it "would all be held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature" and thus excluded from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by the relevant derogation.

2. W hat follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and the law. It does not seek to provide every step of the reasoning. The absence of a reference to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. In this decision any page numbers indicated by their inclusion in brackets refer to pages of the bundle and the following definitions are used:- Freedom of Information Act 2000 FOIA The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 2009 Rules Sugar (deceased) -v- the British Broadcasting Corporation and another [2012] UKSC 4 Sugar Cefyn Jones the Appellant The Information Commissioner the IC the IC's decision notice the DN request for information made by the Appellant the Request British Broadcasting Corporation the BBC Upper Tribunal & First-tier Tribunal UT & FtT Evidence and matters considered

3. The BBC was not a party to the appeal and there was no attendance by the IC. We heard from the Appellant and had a bundle of 86 pdf pages. There were no witness statements and no closed material. We had a number of additional documents including the Appellant's closing statement, the BBC's email of the 11 November 2025, the Appellant's note of 12 November 2025 on the BBC's 11 November email and the IC's letter to the Tribunal of 26 November 2025. The Request

4. On 5 November 2024 the Appellant asked the BBC:- “In 2018, you and other broadcasters started to cover the potential conflicts of interests of Theresa May and Victoria Atkins that surrounded cannabis, just before medicinal cannabis was legalised in November of that year. For some reason, there was a rather abrupt ending to that attention, and due to more evidence of conflicts arising since then, I'm trying to determine why all press seemed to cease and desist on that line of reporting. May I ask for all communications between the BBC and the Government between January 2018 to January 2019 regarding cannabis? Can I also ask for any communications between the BBC and the Government regarding Theresa May and Victoria Atkins? May I just say, and you are welcome to contact me for more information, but there's a Public-Private Partnership between GW and the British Government, which has led to people being arrested for cannabis possession, and that cannabis then being sent to GW Pharmaceuticals for analysis between 2004 to 2018, the year medicinal cannabis was legalised. The Home Office allowed those transfer, so that GW could create a database of cannabis strains and their medicinal properties, whilst the Home Office until early 2018 maintained that there were no medicinal properties to cannabis. The PPP, which began in 1998, was managed by the Home Office, who gave GW a license to grow cannabis for medicinal R&D. It would be good to chat. Equally, if you do have any information as requested above, I would be most grateful."

5. At the appeal the Appellant clarified the Request by confirming that the second limb namely " Can I also ask for any communications between the BBC and the Government regarding Theresa May and Victoria Atkins?" was also intended to be only in respect of cannabis. Background in summary

6. In his closing statement the Appellant explained that his background was " in the cannabis industry, its policy development, and its history in the United Kingdom." He said that "This case sits at the intersection of those areas and the public’s right to understand how decisions may have been influenced during the 2018 legalisation of medicinal cannabis." On 5 November 2024 the Appellant also said to the BBC that there was a "Public-Private Partnership between GW Pharmaceuticals and the British Government which has led to people being arrested for cannabis possession and that cannabis then being sent to GW Pharmaceuticals for analysis between 2004 and 2018, the year medicinal cannabis was legalised" He added (47):- "The Home Office allowed those transfers, so that GW could create a database of cannabis strains and their medicinal properties whilst the Home Office, until early 2018 maintained that there were no medicinal properties to cannabis. The PPP which began in 1998 was managed by the Home Office, who gave GW a license to grow cannabis for medicinal R&D."

7. In his complaint to the IC he said (55):- "There has not been a public inquiry into the potential conflicts of interest reported by the BBC and other media outlets regarding cannabis legalization. This omission is highly unusual, given that the Prime Minister at the time, Theresa May, and the Minister for Drugs, Victoria Atkins, were reported to potentially benefit from the legalization of medicinal cannabis due to their husbands' connections to GW Pharmaceuticals. GW’s product, Epidiolex, was central to the campaign that led to the legalization of medicinal cannabis in November 2018."

8. He believes that these "household links" to the government were initially the subject of reporting but "Coverage then stopped abruptly, just weeks before medicinal cannabis was legalised. My request sought to identify whether any communications existed that might help explain that change in reporting." The Appellant said in his reply that his appeal amongst other things (41):- "... raises a wider public interest issue: whether correspondence with government ministers during a significant regulatory shift (the reclassification of cannabis in 2018) should be protected under journalistic privilege, even if that correspondence was administrative or policy-facing..." and he said (41):- "The period covered by my request—2018 to 2019—was marked by significant regulatory change surrounding medicinal cannabis, and intense political scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest involving the then Prime Minister, and the Minister for Drugs. It is therefore appropriate to ask whether communications between the BBC and the Government during this time influenced coverage, editorial policy, or public perception. The BBC receives public funding through the licence fee. It is expected to operate independently, free from political interference or commercial bias. If communications exist that pertain to political pressure, framing guidance, or reputational management—not editorial scripting—they may fall outside the scope of journalism and instead within administrative governance. In a democratic society, accountability for such matters should not be shielded by a sweeping derogation." Role of the Tribunal

9. The above, about which we make no findings, is for background only. The Tribunal's role in an appeal by section 57 FOIA is set out in section 58 FOIA which provides that:- (1) If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers— (a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or (b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently, the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal. (2) On such an appeal, the Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.

10. The IC referred us to Stuart -v- Information Commissioner & DWP EA/2008/0040 and we also had regard to legal authorities such as:- (a) Peter Wilson -v- The Information Commissioner [2022] UKFTT 0149 in which the FtT said:- 30...the Tribunal’s statutory role is to consider whether there is an error of law or inappropriate exercise of discretion in the Decision Notice. The Tribunal may not allow an appeal simply because it disagrees with the Information Commissioner’s Decision. It is also not the Tribunal’s role to conduct a procedural review of the Information Commissioner’s decision making process or to correct the drafting of the Decision Notice.” (b) Forstater v Information Commissioner and others [2023] UKUT 303 (AAC) where the UT at para 40 said:- "(1) the FTT is required under section 58 of FOIA to decide independently whether the Information Commissioner’s decision was in accordance with the law. In doing so the FTT “must apply the law afresh to the request taking account of the issues presented at the hearing or identified by the First-tier Tribunal.”: ICO v Home Office [2011] UKUT 17 (AAC) at paragraphs [55]-[60]; (2) the “ordinary presumption” is that it is for an appellant to prove their case. The burden will rest with the appellant except where statute expressly or impliedly provides otherwise:..Neither FOIA nor the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2008 contain any express provision about the burden of proof and neither by implication remove the ‘ordinary presumption’ either; and (3) however, the concept of the burden of proof is of secondary importance in tribunal proceedings which involve a full merits review, since to apply strict burdens of proof may prevent the tribunal from properly discharging its responsibility to decide the facts for itself and/or exercise any discretion afresh:..." The BBC's response to the appeal (in summary)

11. The BBC responded to the Request on 29 November 2024 (48) and said that it was clear to them from the Appellant's description of the information sought that if the BBC held information of that kind " it would all be held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature." The BBC added "To be clear, in this case we have not searched for any information since any that we found would be non-disclosable, and the searches would not serve any useful purpose."

12. On 31 December 2024 the Appellant requested an internal review. The BBC did not provide one because in its view the Request was not subject to FOIA (53). The Appellant complained to the IC on 2 January 2025 (54). On 29 May 2025 the IC issued the DN (4) which said "2. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, would be held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so isn’t covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and doesn’t require it to take any steps."

13. On 12 June 2025 the Appellant commenced this appeal (10-24). The IC responded on 22 July 2025 (25-38) and the Appellant provided a reply (42-43). On 11 November 2025, shortly before the appeal hearing, the BBC wrote and said:- "The BBC maintains that the in principle decision by the ICO was correct in its application of the journalism derogation. However, for completeness, we have conducted a targeted electronic search of BBC email records covering the time period from 1 January 2018 to 1 January 2019. The search focused on correspondence between particular BBC staff and government representatives. Specifically, emails sent to, from, or cc’d addresses ending in gov.uk, parliament.uk, or victoriaatkins.org.uk that contained the keyword “cannabis.” This search was carried out across key individuals within our policy and news teams. These teams were selected based on their relevance to the subject matter and the context provided in your request and further submissions. We believe this scope represents a reasonable and proportionate approach to identifying any potentially responsive records. The search did not return any records that meet the criteria of your request. On this basis, we consider it likely that no information of the type requested is held by the BBC."

14. The Appellant commented on this in his email of 12 November 2025. On 26 November 2025 the IC told the Tribunal that they had seen the BBC's letter and the Appellant's response to it. They maintained the outcome set out in the DN and made submissions on the role of the Tribunal (see Stuart) and the Appellant's concerns about the way in which the IC handled the investigation on which they referred to the Judgment of Davis J in British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar [2007] EWHC 905 (admin):- "51. Mr Sugar did, however, raise complaints as to the fairness of the procedure adopted by the IC. He says that he was not sufficiently informed of the BBC's case as made to the IC so as to be able effectively to challenge it; that he did not receive sufficient information as to the use to which the BBC had put the Balen Report; and, generally, that he was not treated on an equal footing with the BBC. He also at one stage said that the decision did not s ufficiently give reasons for rejecting his points, although ultimately he abandoned that, as well as other points raised in the grounds as to alleged unfairness. "52. In my view, there is nothing in any of this. The correspondence shows that the IC sought information from the BBC and Mr Sugar. The IC let each side know in general, but sufficient, terms what was being said. His draft conclusions were fully reasoned and sent out to each side for any further comment... It is to be stressed that there are no Rules applicable to the IC. It must have been contemplated that the IC would seek, so far as possible, to act speedily and informally. One can accept that the IC is under a broad duty to act fairly. In my judgment, he did so here." FOIA

15. FOIA provides that any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing if that information is held (section 1(1) (a) FOIA) and if that is the case to be provided with that information (section 1 (1) (b) FOIA). Section 3 FOIA states:- (1)In this Act “public authority” means— (a)subject to section 4(4), any body which, any other person who, or the holder of any office which—(i)is listed in Schedule 1.."

16. The BBC is listed in schedule 1 but part VI FOIA of that schedule provides for a derogation from FOIA whereby the BBC is only a public authority for FOIA " in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature."

17. Section 7(1) FOIA provides that " Where a public authority is listed in Schedule 1 only in relation to information of a specified description, nothing in Parts I to V of this Act applies to any other information held by the authority." This in effect means that if the information sought is for journalism, art or literature or even partly so (see Sugar) the BBC is not treated as a public authority for the purposes of FOIA including the obligations set out in section 1.

18. Particularly relevant principles from Sugar include:- "75...the correct view is that..."once it is established that the information sought is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, it is effectively exempt from production under the Act , even if the information is also held by the BBC for other purposes." So in effect there are only two categories: one is information held for purposes that are in no way those of journalism, and the other is information held for the purposes of journalism, even if it is also held for other (possibly more important) purposes." "70...the composite expression "journalism, art or literature" seems to be intended to cover the whole of the BBC's output in its mission...to inform, educate and entertain the public. On that comprehensive approach the purposes of journalism, art or literature would be, quite simply, the purposes of the BBC's entire output to the public."

19. As set out in the IC's response (30) there is no exhaustive definition of "journalism" but as set out in Sugar:- "38...let me reflect on the meaning, in the context of the Act , of the words "journalism", "art" and "literature". I suggest that the key to it lies in the omnibus word "output". Article 5 of the BBC's Royal Charter (Cm 6925), presented to Parliament in October 2006, provides, at para (1), that the BBC's main activities should be the promotion of its six Public Purposes, specified in article 4, "through the provision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment" supplied by means of television, radio, online and similar services; and the Charter provides, at article 5(2), that the BBC may carry out other activities, subordinate to its main activities, provided that they promote the Public Purposes. In his letter to Mr Sugar dated 24 October 2005 the Commissioner, echoing the word in the Charter, wrote that he interpreted the three words in the designation broadly so as to include all types of the BBC's "output". In this respect I discern no dissent from his view in any of the three subsequent decisions in these proceedings; and in my opinion he was right. I would be surprised if any later set of facts was to yield a conclusion that something which the BBC put out, or considered putting out, to the public or to a section of the public did not fall within the rubric either of journalism or of art or of literature. So, although one might have an interesting debate whether nowadays the word "journalism" encompasses more than news and current affairs, the debate is likely in this context to be sterile. For any output which did not obviously qualify as journalism would be likely to qualify either as literature or – in particular, in that its meaning has a striking elasticity – as art." and “39...t he Tribunal identified three types of activity : first, the collecting, writing and verifying of material for publication; second, the editing of the material, including its selection and arrangement, the provision of context for it and the determination of when and how it should be broadcast; and third, the maintenance and enhancement of the standards of the output by reviews of its quality, in terms in particular of accuracy, balance and completeness, and the supervision and training of journalists.”

20. When considering types of information that would not be considered journalistic Lord Walker held:- "83. In my view the correct approach is for the Tribunal, while eschewing the predominance of purpose as a test, to have some regard to the directness of the purpose. That is not a distinction without a difference. It is not weighing one purpose against another, but considering the proximity between the subject-matter of the request and the BBC's journalistic activities and end-product. As Irwin J observed in the financial information case, para 87, in the context of a critique of what was "operational": "The cost of cleaning the BBC Boardroom is only remotely linked to the product of the BBC." 84, I respectfully agree with the measured comments of Lord Neuberger MR (para 55): "In my view, whatever meaning is given to 'journalism' I would not be sympathetic to the notion that information about, for instance, advertising revenue, property ownership or outgoings, financial debt, and the like would normally be 'held for purposes...of journalism'. No doubt there can be said to be a link between such information and journalism: the more that is spent on wages, rent or interest payments, the less there is for programmes. However, on that basis, literally every piece of information held by the BBC could be said to be held for the purposes of journalism. In my view, save on particular facts, such information, although it may well affect journalism-related issues and decisions, would not normally be 'held for purposes... of journalism'. The question whether information is held for the purposes of journalism should thus be considered in a relatively narrow rather than a relatively wide way." That is the best way forward in order to strike the difficult balance of competing interests for which Parliament must be taken to have been aiming. But it will still leave some difficult decisions for the Commissioner and, on appeal, the Tribunal. There cannot be (in the words of Davis J, para 57) any "unequivocal, bright-line" test. The position of the parties

21. The BBC's position remains that they knew from the Request that if anything existed it would be held for journalistic purposes and having now looked there was no in-scope information held by them. When seeking an internal review the Appellant said that the Request was not caught by the derogation because (52):- "the focus of my FOI request is on potentially administrative or policy-level communications where the Government may have influenced or requested limitations on coverage. Such comminations if they exist would not relate to the creation of journalistic output but rather to the management or governance of the BBC's interaction with external parties."

22. In his complaint to the IC he said (54):- "The BBC has relied on the journalism, art, and literature exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to deny access to communications between the BBC and the Government regarding cannabis policy and potential conflicts of interest involving Theresa May and Victoria Atkins. While I respect the BBC’s role as a public broadcaster, I believe this information falls outside the scope of the journalism exemption. Specifically, my request pertains to administrative or policy-level communications, not the creation or production of journalistic content. If the Government made formal or informal requests to influence editorial decisions, these communications would reflect external pressures on the BBC’s independence and raise significant public interest concerns."

23. He referred to the following additional concerns:- (a) the BBCs' speed of refusal to carry out an internal review. (b) the involvement of the BBC's legal team rather than the FOI team which suggested to him that "the BBC perceives my request as carrying potential legal or reputational risks. This perception may have influenced their decision to rely on broad exemptions rather than engaging fully with the substance of my arguments or the public interest considerations involved" (c) the absence of a " public inquiry into the potential conflicts of interest reported by the BBC and other media outlets regarding cannabis legalization. This omission is highly unusual, given that the Prime Minister at the time, Theresa May, and the Minister for Drugs, Victoria Atkins, were reported to potentially benefit from the legalization of medicinal cannabis due to their husbands' connections to GW Pharmaceuticals. GW’s product, Epidiolex, was central to the campaign that led to the legalization of medicinal cannabis in November 2018" (d) his "ethical" argument including that:- "The BBC’s refusal to release documents comes at a time when public trust in institutions is at an all-time low. Historical failures, such as the Savile scandal and overly aggressive license enforcement, have eroded confidence in the BBC’s impartiality. Similarly, public disillusionment with government narratives—fueled by controversies surrounding Covid contracts, ‘partygate,’ and PPE profiteering—underscores the need for greater transparency in issues of public interest. By withholding potentially relevant communications, the BBC risks further alienating the public and perpetuating distrust." (e) the "overwhelming public interest in this matter"

24. During the IC's investigation the Appellant also set out his view on the BBC's response to the Request having been made without first looking for any material that might fall within the scope of the Request but outside the derogation. He said (62):- "I believe it is overly broad to assume that all such correspondence would have been held solely for journalistic purposes, particularly when it may have involved political or administrative engagement, or potentially external influence over coverage. The distinction between editorial preparation and institutional policy interface should not be erased simply due to the BBC’s status as a public broadcaster." and he asked the IC to consider:- "Whether a line-by-line or record-by-record assessment might yield material that falls outside of the derogation, or Whether the ICO can request further clarity from the BBC about how and why the relevant records (if held) would be considered journalistic in nature. Should this still result in closure of the case, I ask that you issue a formal decision notice so that I may consider my direction moving forward."

25. In the DN the IC upheld the BBC's view and said (7):- "20 The Commissioner is satisfied, based on the very well established precedent set in the numerous other decisions he has made in cases involving the BBC, that, if held at all, the information requested by the complainant would be held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. It’s therefore not covered by FOIA."

26. In this appeal, from the DN, the Appellant raised a number of issues which are summarised as follows:- (a) the Request was not about " editorial decision-making or journalistic output" but was to "examine the nature of communications between the BBC and government departments concerning cannabis policy between 2018 and 2019." (b) the IC made an assumption that this information would all be covered by the derogation "without applying a record-by-record or purpose-based assessment." (c) No evidence has been provided that the ICO asked the BBC to assess whether the information was held exclusively for journalistic purposes, or whether any records might serve a dual function or be retained administratively. There was also no effort made to determine whether any information fell outside of the derogation and could therefore be disclosed under FOIA." (d) the approach adopted "..undermines transparency and evades scrutiny over whether public service journalism was subject to external influence or political considerations. Given the BBC's unique public service remit and public funding via the licence fee, a higher level of accountability is warranted."

27. The Appellant asked that the Tribunal require the BBC to:- "Conduct a proper record-by-record assessment of any communications held with UK Government departments from January 2018 to January 2019 concerning cannabis, Theresa May, or Victoria Atkins. Determine whether any of those records are held solely for journalistic purposes, or whether they serve dual or administrative functions and therefore fall outside the FOIA derogation. Disclose any information that is not held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature"

28. The IC responded to the appeal and broadly adopted the terms of the DN to which the Appellant:- (a) took issue with the absence of any searches in response to the Request (b) asserted that any external communications with government departments about cannabis policy in 2018–2019, and communications involving then-Prime Minister Theresa May and Victoria Atkins "may have been created or retained not for broadcast, but for policy alignment, regulatory compliance, or reputational management—functions that are administrative, not journalistic." (c) made submissions that the Supreme Court in Sugar was clear that "a sufficiently direct link to output must be factually assessed, not assumed" (d) also made submissions that "If...dual-purpose or archival holdings exist, they may be at least partially disclosable under FOIA" and said that "The blanket rejection of the request ignores this possibility" (e) said that the Tribunal should require the BBC to provide a witness statement and that "If the Tribunal proceeds without such input, it risks validating a speculative refusal without subjecting it to appropriate scrutiny. That would be contrary to the spirit of “fairness and justice” in Rule 2 of the Tribunal’s Procedure Rules." (f) requested that "...the Tribunal require the BBC to confirm whether responsive information exists, and if so, on what basis it is retained." (g) referred to the public interest.

29. The Appellant told us that when making the Request that, due to the drop off of reporting on cannabis, he had in mind that the BBC might have communications from the Government asking them to stop reporting on the subject.

30. He was asked about his request for a review (52) in which he had said for example "Communications requesting the BBC to avoid covering specific topics are not intrinsically journalistic but administrative or policy based" and "Decisions to comply or not comply with such requests reflect governance not the creation of content. I believe these types of communications...should not be exempt from FOIA". He said that he challenged whether the BBC's derogation existed to enable there to be influence or control over what is released. He also said that if they were being restricted from reporting on something as important as the issues in the background to this appeal then while there may be journalistic elements there could be other information outside the definition of journalism. This, he said, could be held for administrative purposes or other non journalistic reasons.

31. He was referred specifically to his closing statement and the words underlined below, in which he said:- "This appeal does not seek disclosure of those communications themselves, but rather asks whether the Information Commissioner acted lawfully in accepting the BBC’s refusal without verifying if any such information was being lawfully withheld under the journalistic derogation."

32. He indicated that what he meant was that he understood that the documentation requested may not exist but he was concerned about the way the BBC and then the IC assumed that anything that did exist would be caught by the derogation. In his view, before deciding the information was derogated, they should have first looked for it and then if it existed decide whether or not the derogation applied.

33. He was referred to his response to the IC on page 39 of the bundle where he said "If such correspondence exists, it may have been created or retained not for broadcast, but for policy alignment, regulatory compliance, or reputational management—functions that are administrative, not journalistic. " When making further submission on this he said that where government intervention had resulted in something "going out" that was journalistic because people could still make up their own minds but it was not journalistic where the intervention resulted in an item being suppressed. He said that if output is suppressed that is something more than journalism. He said that if there was evidence that there had been pressure from Government not to report on what he considers to be conflicts of interest that would be "concerning" and any communications which sought to dissuade the BBC from reporting on this alleged conflict would not be within the journalistic derogation.

34. The Appellant was referred to the BBC's letter of 11 November 2025 in which they indicated a search had been carried out while maintaining their position on the derogation. He expressed concern that the search carried out by the BBC shortly before the hearing was done so late in the day. On review of the letter itself he said that he considered the search parameters used to be too narrow and specific and there should have been broader search keywords.

35. The Appellant said at the appeal that the issues raised by him are in the public interest and should have been dealt with at a public inquiry. The way in which reporting on these matters stopped is his concern as is the use of the derogation as a shield for government communications with the BBC. In his closing written statement he concluded as follows:- "This case turns on a single, clear point of law: The ICO accepted the BBC’s claim without verifying whether the exemption applied. The Sugar test was not followed. I respectfully ask the Tribunal to find that:

1. The Information Commissioner must apply the Sugar v BBC test in every case involving the journalistic derogation.

2. That test requires an evidence-based determination of whether information is held solely for journalism or for mixed purposes such as administration, legal compliance, reputation management, or Government liaison.

3. Where a credible public-interest concern has been raised, the Commissioner cannot rely on assumption alone; a factual assessment is required. I am not asking the Tribunal to compel disclosure of the material — only to require the Commissioner to perform the proper legal test before allowing the derogation to stand. That is how public trust in the Act is maintained—protecting genuine journalism, while preventing the exemption itself from becoming a tool to avoid scrutiny." Tribunal's review

36. A number of issues have been raised during this appeal. It was not relevant to (and we have not sought to) reach conclusions on matters raised by the Appellant such as the desirability for transparency to enhance public trust, the public interest more widely, his ethical concerns, the speed of the refusal, the involvement of the BBC's legal department, any alleged connection between the Government and GW Pharmaceuticals or the absence of a public inquiry. We have also not considered the BBC's submission that it latterly looked for but no in-scope information was held.

37. For the Tribunal the single issue is whether the IC's conclusion in the DN (that if any in-scope information existed it would be journalistic) was in a ccordance with the law and to the extent that the DN involved an exercise of discretion the IC exercised it correctly. Based on the Request itself, Sugar and the submissions made we concluded that the BBC's derogation did apply to the Request. Our reasons are as follows:- (a) we accept the IC's view, for example expressed at para 19 of the DN and that the test is only whether the information (if it exists) is held to any extent for journalism. (b) we accept grey areas might exist but the subject of the Request is far removed from such things akin to questions about advertising revenue, property ownership, outgoings, financial debt or more operational issues such as cleaning the boardroom. (c) the Request itself asks about why the BBC's reporting of a particular issue came (he says) to an "abrupt ending". Accepting for these purposes that this is an accurate representation of the output from the BBC it is our view that decisions not to report are just as much journalistic ones as decisions to report and so information about them will not be subject to FOIA. (d) the Appellant seeks to draw a distinction between " administrative or policy-level communications" and communications about "policy alignment, regulatory compliance, or reputational management—functions" as opposed to "the creation or production of journalistic content." In a different case there might be. However in this appeal we concluded that the Request for " all communications between the BBC and the Government between January 2018 to January 2019 regarding cannabis" was not about policy alignment, regulatory compliance, or reputational management in any operational sense but was seeking to establish why there appeared to have been a change of direction in the BBC's output on this subject. There was therefore " proximity between the subject-matter of the request and the BBC's journalistic activities and end-product." The requested communications with Government about cannabis and the UK Government's policy on cannabis (if they existed) in our view in the context of the Request fall clearly on the side of being within the derogation. (e) the Appellant says " It is therefore appropriate to ask whether communications between the BBC and the Government during this time influenced coverage, editorial policy, or public perception." Even if (which we do not know) any such communication (if it existed) involved pressure being directed at the BBC to report something, not to report something or to moderate its reporting in some way that too would be part of the BBC's journalistic activity. (f) for FOIA purposes we do not agree with the Appellant's submission that " If communications exist that pertain to political pressure, framing guidance, or reputational management—not editorial scripting—they may fall outside the scope of journalism and instead within administrative governance." Providing such information falls on the journalistic side of the definition (which we say it would) such information is subject to the derogation. (g) the Appellant says that "If the Government made formal or informal requests to influence editorial decisions, these communications would reflect external pressures on the BBC’s independence and raise significant public interest concerns." He refers to there being "overwhelming public interest in this matter." Even if he is right about the public interest the derogation question is not subject to any form of public interest review based on section 2 FOIA or howsoever. (h) even if (which we have not considered or found) individuals within the Government had close family or even inappropriate links to 3rd parties the BBC's documentation with the Government about such matters would fall within the derogation. (i) the Appellant's submission that " In a democratic society, accountability for such matters should not be shielded by a sweeping derogation" is not a relevant legal consideration for us when seeking to ensure the DN was compliant with FOIA.

38. The Appellant challenges the BBC about their conclusion being reached without there being a search with a " record-by-record or purpose-based assessment " and the IC for accepting this. In our view, in this case, the Request was clear enough on its own terms for the BBC to be reasonably able to conclude, without a search, that even if something existed it would be journalistic. We reach the same view as regards the steps taken by the IC noting that it is not, in any event, the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the IC's decision making process. Decision

39. Accordingly we have concluded that the DN was in accordance with the law and to the extent that the DN involved an exercise of discretion the IC exercised it correctly. The appeal is dismissed. Signed Judge Heald Date: 26 January 2026