The BBC has fought off a renewed attempt to force public disclosure of an internal review of its Middle East reporting.

Three appeal judges in London today rejected a challenge by lawyer Steven Sugar to a High Court ruling which blocked his claim that the report should be made public under the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr Sugar, a commercial solicitor from Putney, south-west London, may now seek to take his case to the House of Lords.

He contends that the report by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen should be published as part of the on-going public debate about alleged BBC bias against Israel.

At first instance, the information commissioner agreed with the BBC that, although it was listed as a “public authority” in the Act, it was exempted from having to disclose material held for the purposes of “journalism, art or literature” and the Act therefore did not apply.

Mr Sugar took the issue to appeal and the Information Tribunal backed him.

But High Court judge Mr Justice Davis then accepted the BBC’s argument that the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the case fell outside the scope of the Act and there had been no decision for Mr Sugar to appeal against.

That ruling was upheld today by Lords Justices Buxton and Lloyd and Sir Paul Kennedy.

Mr Sugar contends that the Act has been badly drafted and is preventing disclosure of material which should be publicly available.

The BBC says the Balen report was always intended as an internal review of programme content, to inform future output. It was never intended for publication.

It says it is vital for independent journalism that debates among its staff about how it covers stories do not have to be opened up to the public gaze.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Future Stars of the Bar 2008
• Lawyer of the Week: Julie Morris
• Charging suspects - why it's a job for prosecutors