A Labour MP has called for parliament to carry out an investigation into why and how the Judicial Appointments Commission uses public funds.
On Monday (8) Eastern Eye revealed that the commission had failed in its attempt to silence a journalist, Barnie Choudhury, by trying to claim legal costs of more than £14,000.
Since 2020, Choudhury has written over 20 articles highlighting bullying, misogyny and racism in the judiciary and the appointments process.
Several serving and past judges have accused the JAC of using taxpayers’ money to ‘intimidate’ and ‘silence’ critics inside and outside the judiciary.
“Judges of colour have long complained that the Judicial Appointments Commission has inbuilt racial bias,” said Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent West. “Barnie Choudhury has campaigned as a journalist just as long to expose that bias.
“So, when the JAC spends public money trying to stop him getting information which a court of law rules he is perfectly entitled to, we should be concerned.
“But when they spend further public money and lose a further case pursuing a claim for costs against him, we should be outraged.
“Vindictiveness is not what we expect of our judiciary.”
Barry Gardiner MP (Credit: members.parliament.uk)
Costs as punishment
The tribunal ruled out using costs as punishment – even if it thought the journalist’s language was ‘intemperate’ or ‘unreasonable’.
The two judges accepted Choudhury genuinely thought the JAC had disobeyed a court order.
They said that view gave him every right to push for a way to enforce the original ruling.
Freedom of information requests revealed that as of 31 July 2025, the JAC had spent more than £69,000 fighting Choudhury.
A legal costs expert and former deputy costs judge, Dr Victoria McCloud told Eastern Eye, “It was concerning to see that such costs were sought against a renowned investigative journalist simply doing his job, and the case rightly garnered significant press coverage and caused concern among public interest journalists.
“It is important that the use of public funds in litigation in this way against a journalist so as to see to penalise him financially is properly investigated now as should be legal expenses incurred in cases opposing judges who make claims.”
But Choudhury’s is not an isolated case.
That figure included a bill for almost £102,000 on a hearing which lasted just two days.
At the time the union which represents judges, the GMB, called on the justice select committee to investigate the use of public money.
Nothing happened.
“It is not for me to comment on controversies over alleged institutional racism in the judiciary including in the appointments process,” McCloud continued, “but on any basis such matters are a proper topic for public debate and journalistic work.
“It is welcome to see the law as to the awarding of legal costs being followed effectively and robustly by the court so as to ensure journalists are not stifled or intimidated.”
Dr Victoria McCloud (Credit: Gatehouse Chambers)
Continued costs
But the JAC’s spending does not end in 2023.
FOI responses show that as of 31 July 2025 the JAC has spent a whopping £191,328.47 on five cases – including Choudhury’s.
Judges and the MP, Barry Gardiner, are concerned that the JAC is spending money fighting freedom of information requests.
Tied in the £191,328.47 figure is a bill for almost £95,000 on another individual, Abbas Mithani, asking for details using the FOI act.
Eastern Eye has been reporting his case extensively.
To be clear, that means of the five cases revealed, the JAC spent 86 per cent fighting openness and transparency.
But the JAC’s fight with Mithani continues, so that bill will be even higher – without parliamentary scrutiny.
Mithani declined to comment.
“It is deeply disappointing that the JAC chose to pursue a courageous journalist for costs, in an effort to silence any criticism, and to prevent the examination of their practices that we and the public are all entitled to know about,” said a south Asian judge who wanted to remain anonymous, because those in the judiciary cannot speak to journalists without permission.
“This is a public appointment system of judges paid for by the tax payer, not the Inns of Court.
“Successive governments have ignored this important area, and still are, accepting virtue signalling judicial policies and schemes that are sound bites that achieve little or nothing.”
Barnie Choudhury’s is not an isolated case (Credit: Barnie Choudhury)
Legal counsel
One of the biggest criticisms of the JAC is the way it uses public funds to resource legal battles.
A recent case of a judge, Kate Thomas, contested the outcome of a promotions board.
Her case hinged on something Eastern Eye broke exclusively in 2021.
It concerned the pernicious practice of “secret soundings” where anyone can write anonymously about a candidate applying for a post in the judiciary, even if they do not know them personally.
Thomas declined to comment.
Sources have told Eastern Eye, this JAC case racked up legal costs of around a half million pounds.
We approached the JAC for comment.
“What we need,” said one serving judge, “is what happened in the Lord Mandelson case.
“We need MPs to ask for a humble address and force the government to handover all documents pertaining to costs incurred by the JAC in cases of freedom of information requests and fighting their own judges and candidates who complain about unfairness.
“We have a right to know how the government’s legal department decide what to pursue, the decision making process in what resources to throw at it, and the success rates.
“If this were a business, or if this were your own money, you’d do a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis.
“It’s common sense, but because no-one’s looking, the JAC is throwing good money after bad.”
Allegations of racism
The tribunal rebuked Choudhury for using unreasonable language and making allegations which it said the reporter could not prove.
Choudhury accused the JAC and judiciary of institutional racism.
But judges have told Eastern Eye that the reporter must stand by his claim.
“Things have got better since Barnie Choudhury pointed out what we’ve had to face,” said another south Asian judge. “However, things have also got worse.
“The lady chief justice thinks she’s cracked the diversity problem in the judiciary, and that all we need are a few more black judges.
“She couldn’t be further removed from reality.”
Another said, “I’m ill because my senior presider [head judge of a group of courts in a geographical area] is racist and this trickles down to the staff who treat me with no respect, calling me names and not doing what they’re paid to do.
“There’s no point in complaining because you end up being blamed, they find some excuse to investigate or complain about you.
“You end up on anti-depressants and on sick leave.”
A different south Asian judge explained, “Those who challenge, and raise the issue of race are targeted, victimised and gas lit.
“There is a problem in appointments and there are major problems in fair treatment of those who are appointed, and who are inferior in the eyes of those who are in charge of us.
“That has not changed and is not changing, and committees are set up to be no more than echo chambers.
“The entire system, and the way it is currently developing, in the way it treats judges who dare to complain, in the way they treat judges or aspiring judges, needs a wide ranging, and independent investigation, by someone like Baroness Louise Casey.
“That should be followed by wholesale reform.
“Judges are a pillar of democracy, and yet there is no democracy, or transparency, or fairness.”
She eventually won her case, and today Gillham is the president of the GMB judicial branch, the union which represents judges.
“The complaints process itself has been improperly used by judicial leadership,” she said. “Judges who, as a profession, report high incidence of bullying by superiors can become further targeted in this way if they complain.
“We observe that their leadership lack the professional experience and training to handle personnel matters fairly.
“Litigation is conducted in a way that multiplies costs, apparently to silence legitimate complaints which have not been properly responded to internally.
“It has been apparent from this hopeless application against Professor Choudhury that he has now had that reactive attacking style turned on him too.
“I am concerned that a public body answering to central government seems to have been able to attempt to silence a journalist without apparent ministerial authorisation.”
Journalism matters
Over the past six years, Eastern Eye has spoken with dozens of judges of colour and those who are white.
Solicitors and barristers, some of whom want to be judges, shared their concerns.
They have told this newspaper repeatedly that the system is rigged against them, and if they fight it, they will be singled out for victimisation by an organisation which uses the deep pockets of the public purse, knowing no-one will ever question its motives.
“For now, all we have are a few independent journalists,” said one serving judge. “Most are too afraid themselves, because they know they’ll end up being targeted.
“Those in charge say they are protecting the judiciary, they really aren't.
“The stories are all there, whether it relates to appointments or work allocation management, judicial security, discrimination or anything else.
“Yet they remain, as is intended, carefully concealed behind the impenetrable veil of respectability, arrogance and unlimited power.”
The Labour MP for Brent West, Barry Gardiner, is now demanding answers.
“The truth is that the JAC have been spending hundreds of thousands of pounds defending freedom of information requests and allegations of bias against their own judges, and judicial candidates,” he said.
“This should now be the subject of a select committee inquiry, and I shall be writing to the chair of the Justice Committee to ask that they examine precisely what is going on.”
