A local journalist has won a freedom of information battle to be able to name a Labour councillor who was summoned to court for non-payment of council tax.

Dale Haslam, left, a reporter with the Newsquest-owned Bolton News, had fought a three-and-a-half-year battle with Bolton Council.

He originally made a request to the council under the Freedom of Information Act for details of councillors who had received reminders for non-payment of council tax since May 2011.

The council told him there were six such councillors, and gave their political parties, how much they owed, how much was outstanding, and said that two had been summoned to court.

In November 2012, Dale asked for the names of the individual councillors – information the authority refused to give, saying it was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act – a decision subsequently upheld by the Information Commissioner.

Dale then appealed to the First Tier Tribunal in relation to the names of the two councillors who had been summoned – and his appeal was rejected.

One of the two councillors subsequently identified himself, so that the appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerned only the remaining individual who was summoned.

Judge Kay Markus QC upheld Dale’s appeal and ordered Bolton Council to let him have the name of the anonymous councillor within 35 days, meaning it must be made public by 20 April.

Bolton News editor Ian Savage said: “I am delighted with this news. It is not right that an elected official who is publicly accountable and potentially instrumental in setting the amount of council tax that the people of Bolton have to pay, should hide in this manner.

“Whether you believe non-payment of council tax is a private matter or not, there is definitely a difference between a private individual and a councillor.

“I think it is disgraceful that the council has gone to the lengths it has, and spent so much money, to keep this person’s name secret. Surely now he or she should do the decent thing and come forward, so this whole sorry saga can finally be put to bed.

“This is a fine example of journalism at its best and I cannot praise highly enough the tenacity of The Bolton News’ editorial team — particularly reporter Dale Haslam — who have refused to give up.”

In her judgement, Judge Markus said it was “not reasonable” for a councillor to expect not to be identified when he was summoned for non-payment of council tax.

She said there were “powerful factors” as to why a councillor’s default in paying council tax was a serious matter of public concern, both over the individual’s ability to perform his key functions, and in terms of public accountability and accountability.

The judge said section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 barred a councillor from voting on the authority’s budget if he or she had an outstanding council tax debt of more than two months, adding: “Thus, council tax default strikes at the heart of the performance of a councillor’s functions.”

Non-payment of council tax also put the councillor in conflict with the obligations of his office including to protect the council’s resources, to act in accordance with the law, and to act in accordance with the trust the public has placed in him.

“In my judgment, a councillor should expect to be scrutinised as to, and accountable for, his actions in so far as they are relevant to his public office,” Judge Markus said.

There was a “compelling legitimate public interest” in the public knowing whether a particular councillor had failed to pay council tax, at least in circumstances in which section 106 of the 1992 Act applied.

“In most cases this compelling interest will outweigh the councillor’s personal privacy,” the judge went on.

“The public interest in knowing the information is central to the proper functioning and transparency of the democratic process.

“The identification of the defaulting councillor involves an intrusion into his private life … but it is an intrusion that a councillor must be taken to have accepted when taking office.”

The question was whether the general position pertaining to councillors was displaced in this case by the individual’s personal mitigating circumstances, Judge Markus said.

“There may be exceptional cases in which the personal circumstances of a councillor are so compelling that a councillor should be protected from such exposure,” she went on.

“But I do not consider that the personal circumstances of the councillor in this case are sufficiently strong to displace the significant interests in disclosure of his name.”

She had taken into account the fact that the councillor might feel compelled to explain his default, or that identifying him might lead to exposure of some of his personal circumstances, and accepted that he might suffer some distress or damage to his reputation and standing, she said, adding: “I do not consider that the consequences are sufficiently adverse to mean that it would be unfair to disclose his name.”