The BBC went to the High Court today in an attempt to overturn a ruling that a member of the public has the right under freedom of information laws to see an internal report on its Middle East coverage.

Critics of the BBC want to know if the Balen Report, believed to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of bias against Israel in news programming.

Steven Sugar, a London solicitor, fought a lengthy battle to get access to the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, originally backed the BBC’s decision to block access to the report but the Information Tribunal later ruled in Mr Sugar’s favour last August. The case has wide implications for the future working of the Act in relation to public broadcasters.

Monica Carss-Frisk, QC, representing the BBC, told Mr Justice Davis that the tribunal was wrong to grant Mr Sugar access to the document.

Ms Carss-Frisk also said that the Information Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear Mr Sugar’s appeal under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.

Niri Shan, an expert in media law at Taylor Wessing, said the case was significant because very few freedom of information cases reach the High Court. The majority end at the Information Tribunal appeal stage.

“If the High Court overturns the Information Tribunal’s ruling it will be a blow to its credibility - and would have a significant bearing on future Tribunal cases,” Mr Shan said.

A significant part of the two-day hearing will focus on whether the Information Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider Mr Sugar’s appeal and rule as it did.

According to the Act, the BBC is only bound by the Freedom of Information Act “for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature”.

Along with Channel 4, Britain’s other public service broadcaster, the BBC is allowed to hold back material that deals with the production of its art, entertainment and journalism and it has rejected more than 400 Freedom of Information requests on that basis.

In his successful appeal, Mr Sugar argued that the Balen report was not held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism “because it is a report about journalism itself”, and he was therefore entitled to apply to see it under the Freedom of Information Act.

The judge told Mr Sugar, from Putney, south west London, that he would be given ample time at hearing to make his own submissions to the court.

Mr Sugar said recently that he did not know whether the information contained in the report was significant but “instinct says that if they don’t want to give it to me it may be important”.

The report, which examines hundreds of hours of BBC radio and television broadcasts, was compiled by Malcolm Balen, a senior editorial adviser, in 2004.

The BBC said it was intended as “an internal review of programme content, to inform future output” and was never intended for publication.

A spokesman for the BBC said it is “asking the High Court to reconsider the Information Tribunal’s decision that Mr Balen’s review was covered by the Freedom of Information Act because it is very important that it obtains clarification from the courts about the extent to which the Act applies”.

The spokesman added that the BBC’s decision to contest the case had nothing to do with the fact Mr Balen’s review was about the Middle East and that the same approach would have been taken whatever area of news output was involved.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• UK legal industry faces loss of 10,000 lawyers
• Curious case of chocolate bunny trademark
• Divorce settlement granted after 22 years