The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has apologised after discovering that information it refused to disclose following a freedom of information request by a solicitor judge had already been published online. The issue emerged in the latest hearing of the General Regulatory Chamber in the first-tier tribunal in a case brought by His Honour Judge Abbas Mithani.

Mithani is challenging the JAC's refusal to answer eight requests under the Freedom of Information Act on grounds that the requests involved personal data and information whose disclosure ‘would otherwise prejudice or be likely otherwise to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs’.

Mithani has previously accused the JAC of seeking to avoid public scrutiny by refusing to provide information on the number of applicants and interviewees in selection exercises as well as the scoring framework. JAC denies all claims against it.

At last Friday's hearing, Natasha Simonsen, for the JAC, said an issue had come to light about a request relating to applications for circuit judge positions. 'The number of applicants and number that were shortlisted is confidential,' she said. 'It is a very small number and we say the number would lead to individuals being identified.'

However she revealed that, following an appointment, the JAC has published online that there had been two vacancies, the number of applicants was four and one recommendation was made. That aspect of the FoI request thus falls away, she said. 'We do regret this issue has arisen in this way.’ She added that the number of applicants interviewed remains confidential. 

Simonsen told the three-person panel that the ‘correction does not substantially affect’ evidence given during the two-day trial earlier this year. 

However she told the panel that disclosing the scoring framework would mean it could not be used again and either new questions would need to be created or the ‘question bank would be down one question’.

Mithani told the panel that the JAC and the information commissioner had failed to take into account the public interest test for disclosure. 'The public are entitled to know the scoring framework. After all, who monitors the JAC? The public if provided with the scoring framework with the answers JAC has given will be able to judge for itself if the way judges were tested is appropriate.’

Judgment was reserved.