Jolene Bunting: Former Belfast councillor loses appeal against disqualification from seeking re-election for three years

​Judges at the Court of Appeal rejected claims the ban was unfairly imposed at a tribunal where she feared having to face the leader of far-right party Britain First.

Ms Bunting argued that the adjudication hearing should have been adjourned due to her anxiety at the prospect of cross-examining Paul Golding on allegations he made about her without legal representation.

But Lord Justice McCloskey ruled today that adequate facilities to address any concerns would have been provided.

“Every effort was made to accommodate the appellant. Ultimately, her absence from the hearing was by personal choice,” he said.

“Her belated excuse for non-attendance, namely fear of her accuser, has rung hollow at every stage.”

In February the Northern Ireland Local Government Commissioner for Standards (NILGCS) imposed the sanction for a breach of its code of conduct.

The watchdog found that Ms Bunting doctored a payslip in a bid to obtain cash from Britain First.

An investigation was initiated following a complaint lodged by Mr Golding.

He claimed his party sent Ms Bunting money to cover an alleged fine from Belfast City Council for a publicity stunt involving its former deputy leader, Jayda Fransen.

Ms Fransen had been filmed making a statement while wearing robes and sitting in the lord mayor’s chair at City Hall in 2018.

But the tribunal was told that a £545 deduction in Ms Bunting’s council pay was actually because she exceeded the data allowance on her mobile phone.

The Commissioner held that she improperly used her position to secure financial advantage by amending her payslip to gain from Mr Golding and Britain First, bringing her position as a councillor into disrepute.

Ms Bunting denied the allegations throughout the adjudication and also made a last-ditch attempt to halt the proceedings.

Her legal challenge centred on an alleged refusal by NILGCS to grant her an adjournment in order to secure lawyers for the hearing.

Ms Bunting did not attend the adjudication, but had sent an email the previous evening setting out her failure to obtain legal representation or receive necessary documents.

She also referred to Mr Golding as someone who had caused her “great consternation and anxiety over the last number of years”.

Ms Bunting claimed to be “genuinely in fear” of the Britain First leader.

“I am not emotionally ready to face him, never mind engage with him,” she stated.

On the day of the tribunal she tried unsuccessfully for more than half an hour to join remotely in order to seek to have the case put back.

Her initial High Court challenge was dismissed after a judge held that the adjournment request was reasonably denied at a tribunal where appropriate safeguards were available.

Appealing that ruling, counsel for Ms Bunting contended there was “procedural unfairness” in the handling of her case.

He claimed that by the time she found out her bid to have the adjudication put back had been denied it was a “fait accompli”.

Dismissing the challenge, however, Lord Justice McCloskey said: “We consider that, procedurally, the adjournment decision making process was conspicuously fair.”

All representations Ms Bunting wanted to make were considered at the tribunal hearing she deliberately chose to remain absent from, the judge held.

He concluded: “We would add that the applicant’s grounds of challenge are replete with speculation, coupled with bare and unsubstantiated assertions.

"The supporting evidence which the appellant has chosen to provide to two successive courts is a combination of the selective and the tenuous.” ends