Former Belfast councillor Jolene Bunting feared having to face leader of far-right Britain First party Paul Golding, court is told

A barrister for Ms Bunting argued that the adjudication process should have been adjourned due to her anxiety at the prospect of cross-examining Paul Golding without legal representation.

Judgment was reserved in her attempt to have the three-year disqualification quashed.

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 watchdog 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 centres on an alleged refusal by NILGCS to grant her an adjournment in order to secure lawyers for the hearing.

She did not attend the adjudication, but had sent an email the previous evening setting out her failure to obtain legal representation.

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

Ms Bunting also claimed to be “genuinely in fear” of the Britain First leader and stated that she was not ready to face him, let alone engage with him.

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, Ronan Lavery KC contended there was “procedural unfairness” in the handling of Ms Bunting’s case.

He claimed that by the time she found out her bid for an adjournment had been denied it was a “fait accompli”.

During exchanges Lord Justice McCloskey challenged Mr Lavery about his client’s failure to attend her own hearing.

“On her own account she was never going to go there because of fear and intimidation,” the judge pointed out.

But the barrister maintained that the issue had already been decided.

“The decision maker was obliged to have regard to all the facts in balancing them against the public interest in proceeding,” he added.

A ruling on Ms Bunting’s appeal is expected later this month