A SENIOR councillor will be prevented from cross-examining a colleague when he goes on trial over an alleged incident at a charity dinner, magistrates have ruled.

John Blackie, who represents the Upper Dales on Richmondshire District Council, is accused of accosting fellow councillor Melva Steckles at the authority’s event last October.

Councillor Blackie is due to appear at Northallerton Magistrates’ Court next week, charged with using words or behaviour likely to cause harassment or alarm.

Yesterday, magistrates upheld an application from the Crown Prosecution Service preventing Coun Blackie, who is representing himself, from cross-examining Coun Steckles.

Coun Blackie was issued with a fixed-penalty notice for disorder after the alleged incident, at Vimy Barracks, in Catterick Garrison.

The case went to court after Coun Blackie challenged the decision.

At yesterday’s hearing, prosecutor Sue Kerr said Coun Steckles did not wish to face Coun Blackie in court.

Mrs Kerr said: “It is far more personal if the defendant himself is asking questions to the witness, rather than through the more impersonal medium of a solicitor.”

Coun Blackie said he had participated in more vociferous exchanges with Coun Steckles during council meetings.

He added that banning him from cross-examining the key witness would harm his right to a fair trial.

He said: “I pose no threat to Ms Steckles being allowed to put her evidence in a calm and unflustered way.

“I realise that the cut and thrust atmosphere both Ms Steckles and I are used to in the council chamber would be totally inappropriate in the magistrates’ court.”

Magistrates upheld the prosecution’s application after a 30- minute adjournment.

Coun Blackie was advised to appoint a solicitor by Tuesday afternoon to conduct the cross-examination of Coun Steckles.

If he is unable to secure representation by the time the trial is due to begin on Thursday, there is a provision in place for the court to provide a solicitor for that part of the hearing.

Coun Blackie described the magistrates’ decision as “extremely disappointing” and told the court he would be unable to instruct a solicitor in time.