AddThis SmartLayers

Reporter fails in bid to name and shame councillors

A tribunal has ruled that two local councillors who were summoned to court for non-payment of council tax should remain anonymous despite a newspaper’s bid to unmask them.

Bolton News reporter Dale Haslam had appealed against a decision by the Information Commissioner to withold the names of the two local politicians, who received court summonses from their own authority after failing to pay a total of £4,600 council tax on time.

The News had argued that the public had a right to know if councillors fell below the standards of behaviour expected of local representatives.

However the information tribunal said that publishing their names would cause the two councillors distress and infringe their human rights.

It a written judgement, Judge Robin Challender Smith and two tribunal members decided the circumstances of their cases placed the councillors in a position where they “could significantly and legitimately have expected not to be named”.

“Such publication would be contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which relates to the) private life rights of the individuals,” they said.

“Releasing the information could potentially cause unnecessary and unjustified damage and distress to the individuals.”

The ruling brings an end to The News’s attempts to get the councillors’ names, as there are no further appeal stages available.

In the ruling, the tribunal suggested that the newspaper should have obtained the information by attending the court when the case was originally dealt with.

It said: “That attendance, on behalf of the public, provides a platform for legitimate and legally privileged publication of the information.”

However neither of the two councillors actually ended up in court as they each arranged payment plans with the council, covering the periods of 2011/12 and 2012/13. Both have now paid their arrears in full.

The Bolton News has so far not responded to requests for a comment on the ruling.

14 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • August 6, 2014 at 9:59 am
    Permalink

    My initial outrage was tempered by the comment: “In the ruling, the tribunal suggested that the newspaper should have obtained the information by attending the court when the case was originally dealt with.”
    The future of reporting.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 6, 2014 at 10:06 am
    Permalink

    Is this the same Robin Calender Smith who is media lawyer for the Sun and Express? He’s probably right about the law but in this case the law is an ass. I am waiting to see a comment from the Bolton News…

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 6, 2014 at 10:18 am
    Permalink

    But if there was an original hearing or court date of some description (and the story is unclear about this) then the bare details, names etc., must have been public at that point. Court registers are public documents and can be inspected. So the bare details should still be public, but perhaps now with only qualified privilege. The information tribunal ruling appears to suggest that the paper has to attend live proceedings in order to be able to report, and also suggests there was a hearing. Court lists and registers are public documents and can, with care, be used to stand up stories when a paper has not attended court. The story, though, says the matter never reached court. Confusing.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 6, 2014 at 10:19 am
    Permalink

    ““In the ruling, the tribunal suggested that the newspaper should have obtained the information by attending the court when the case was originally dealt with.”

    A moronic comment from the judge.

    1) Most newspapers are understaffed nowadays. They can’t have reporters sitting around in every courtroom in their area all day every day in case a decent story pops up.

    2) Courts are becoming increasingly secret, with many court staff seemingly either never having been trained in their duties to supply information to the press and public, or simply very confident that their overt failure to supply this information will not result in any punishment. Something as basic as getting the address of a defendant out of a court clerk is regularly becoming an ordeal in my area. Court lists often include zero detail beyond the defendant’s name – and in many cases are never supplied in the first place. So the chances of the reporter having had any advance warning that this case was coming to court are minimal.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 6, 2014 at 11:24 am
    Permalink

    LOL is right.

    Hope the Bolton News is going to run a front page with two silhouettes…

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 6, 2014 at 11:39 am
    Permalink

    The courts have a duty to provide public information to newsrooms whether they are understaffed or not. Staff simply refuse to, either because they have not been properly trained or because they know there will be no repercussions, despite the fact that they are overtly breaching the law.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 6, 2014 at 3:52 pm
    Permalink

    Nothing like leading by example, is there? Typical of the rock-bottom low calibre of many councillors these days. Waste of space, most of them.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 6, 2014 at 4:57 pm
    Permalink

    On my local court lists it does not list everyone up for faliure to pay as there are often a lot so it just lists the authority name and has ‘failure to pay Times X cases’ so no gaurentee that they would have appeared on a court list individualy

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 6, 2014 at 5:52 pm
    Permalink

    Court lists, court register. In my experience different things. Court
    list is admin, a guide. Court register is an official document, which anyone can ask to see, which details everything that moves through the court. Sometimes it is only completed a month or two in arrears, but it’s there. Non payment of council tax, VAT evasion, TV licence cheats. All there. All names. All addresses.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 6, 2014 at 9:45 pm
    Permalink

    You can get the court lists emailed to your inbox the day before, under jack straw’s brilliant court transparency changes. If you are not doing this then you deserve to be kept in the dark.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 7, 2014 at 10:26 am
    Permalink

    Do Your Job – That’s a lovely idea in theory, but it took us months and months of pestering the court before they eventually started providing them.

    It’s all very well saying ‘Jack Straw changed the law to say X, Y and Z’ but the reality is that court staff in my area seem to have no idea whatsoever of what their duties are. As I said above, there are court clerks in my area who sometimes refuse to give defendants’ addresses, citing the Data Protection Act. What should be a 30-second interaction turns into a 15-minute ordeal whereby the court manager has to be called. These people either have no training, or just know they can fob journalists off, in breach of their legal duties, without any fear of recourse.

    We do get the lists through now, finally. The Magistrates Court lists are quite detailed – name, date of birth, address, charges. However, in case like this, regarding council tax, the individuals are still not named. On the Crown Court lists, all we get is the name. Nothing else.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)