The BBC should not reveal whether Britain’s Queen Elizabeth buys a TV licence, a tribunal has ruled.
A lengthy legal battle between the corporation and journalist Gordon McIntosh has come to a close after almost two years after an appeal, the Information Commissioner and, finally yesterday (30.10.14), a tribunal all found the station were right to refuse the Freedom of Information request.
The journalist initially wrote to the BBC in December 2012 to ask if the annual £145.50 license fee was paid for televisions at all of the royal palaces, including Buckingham Palace, and to ask if they "scrutinise and check in the same way as for residential or commercial premises".
But the BBC rejected the request because the details were exempt as they are "personal data".
This triggered a complaint from Mr. McIntosh, who asked the BBC to review the decision, but this was rejected and referred to the Information Commissioner.
The Information Commissioner upheld the BBC’s decision saying there was "a risk individuals could be identified from a full post code", given there are so few residents in the specified addresses.
They also added it was hard to see "how disclosure would meet any specific public interest".
Mr. McIntosh argued the decision and accused the organisation of "negligently overlooking" a matter of public interest, insisting "reliable sources" had told him many staff and non-royal residents at the palaces did not pay for licenses and the public should know if they were not being prosecuted.
At the tribunal today, Judge Anisa Dhanji – who sat on the panel with Michael Jones and Nigel Watson – ruled there was "no evidence" to substantiate the claims, which the BBC denied.
She also dismissed suggestions from the journalist that the that the Information Commissioner had a "vested interest in protecting the royal household".
Queen Elizabeth’s TV license possession to stay secret
