Coincidence? Not a chance. Contradictory? Probably. Nonsense? Absolutely.

Heacham pensioner Richard Fitzmaurice had made his point, gained national publicity once again and his unpaid tax had been paid to West Norfolk Council.

But why was he locked up in the first place?

A search of the Internet for the procedure in cases of wilful non-payment of council tax led me to Directgov, the Government's own website, which had the following to say:

If you are unable (in Mr Fitzmaurice's case, unwilling) to come to a payment arrangement with the council, or if you make arrangements to pay but don't, your council can ask the magistrates' court for a "liability order" (a demand for you to pay the full amount you owe, plus costs).

You have the right to attend the court and offer evidence as to why you are not liable for the debt. Even if you decide not to attend court, you should speak to the council or, if you prefer, your local Citizens' Advice Bureau. The council will try to come to a reasonable arrangement with you for payment but they cannot do that unless you contact them.

The consequences of ignoring a liability order: If the court makes a liability order against you, your council can take enforcement action against you in order to recover the debt. This will usually mean either deductions from wages and benefits or the use of bailiffs, although bankruptcy and charging orders are other options.

Deductions from wages: Your council can order your employer to deduct a regular amount from your wages toward your unpaid council tax. If this causes you financial hardship, you can ask your council if it's willing to accept smaller payments.

Deduction from benefits: Your council may be able to apply for deductions if you are receiving Jobseekers' Allowance, Income Support or Pension Credit.

Bailiffs: Your council can send bailiffs to your home to seize property to sell. The money raised goes towards paying your debt, plus costs.

The billing authority must send a letter two weeks before the bailiff's first visit stating how much money you owe under the liability order.

You can contact the council and the bailiffs and offer to come to an agreement on payments. It's important to do this straight away, because if the bailiffs make a visit their costs could be added to your bill.

Court hearing: If your council has tried using bailiffs but your council tax still isn't paid in full, they may apply to the magistate's court for a warrant committing you to prison. The council will only take this step when other efforts have failed.

Before issuing a warrant of commitment the court must hold a means inquiry with you present. A warrant will only be issued if the court is satisfied that the failure to pay is the result of wilful refusal or culpable neglect. The maximum period of imprisonment is three months.

The court may decide to postpone the period of imprisonment on certain conditions, normally relating to payment of the debt over a period of time. The court also has the power to remit all or part of the debt.

All of that throws up some interesting questions, whatever your view of Mr Fitzmaurice's protest. Without knowing all the ins and outs of the case it would seem that at some point a liability order must have been issued.

Mr Fitzmaurice is retired, so deductions from wages was never a runner. It would seem that using bailiffs to seize his property to the value, when sold, of his debt was the next option, and probably the one best likely to achieve the council's primary aim, to get the bill paid. Mr Fitzmaurice lives in a very nice property in Heacham and had declared that he could afford to pay the bill.

So it would seem that goods could have been recovered to settle the matter. That doesn't appear to have happened. I wonder why. The council appears to have skipped that option and gone straight for the go directly to jail option.

This, on the face of it, never had a hope of achieving the primary aim. It was not the council's job to punish Mr Fitzmaurice. He had made it plain, on a point of deeply-held principle, that he would go to jail rather than pay the council its tax, but it still remained the duty of the council to collect that tax by any lawful means at its disposal.

And not all those lawful means appear to have been exhausted.

Mr Fitzmaurice made a plea for community service. This would appear to make the best of a bad job. Mr Fitzmaurice was not going to pay, so the public purse would be that much poorer. Sending him to prison would make the public purse poorer still. Community service would, however, put something back into the very community being most affecfed by this sorry affair.

He was told the law only allowed for a prison term. In that case the law needs changing to give magistrates room to use their common sense for the common good. No common good was served by throwing Mr Fitzmaurice back into prison.

I'm not saying community service is right for every eventuality, and the courts must retain the final sanction of prison.

But I'm still troubled by the council's rush to see Mr Fitzmaurice locked away.

Of course, the council would stand its best chance of all of gaining the amount owed to it if it knew that the bill would be settled in full within a few days of Mr Fitzmaurice being sent to prison.

He would gain publicity for his, in my opinion, worthwhile cause and the council gets its cash – some might say the means justifies the ends. But would it be ethical? That would make the court proceedings a sham – an abuse of the legal process and perversion of the public's perception of that process.

I have every sympathy for pensioners facing large council tax bills but, on this occasion, I feel strangely cheated... by both parties.