Carmichael acted 'dishonourably' in denying Sturgeon memo leak, court told
|
Version 0 of 1. Alistair Carmichael’s denial of his involvement in leaking a memo intended to damage Nicola Sturgeon amounted to “fundamental, dishonourable conduct”, according to the lawyer representing constituents who wish to see his re-election as the last Liberal Democrat MP in Scotland voided. On the second day of the election court hearing in Edinburgh before Lord Matthews and Lady Paton on Tuesday, Jonathan Mitchell QC argued that the Orkney and Shetland MP put his own reputation on the line when, the day after the leak, Carmichael told Channel 4 News that the first he became aware of what had happened was when a journalist informed him of it. He subsequently admitted, following a Cabinet Office inquiry that concluded in May after the election, that he had authorised his special adviser to release the memo about a private conversation in which Scotland’s first minister purportedly told a French diplomat she wanted David Cameron to remain the UK prime minister. Sturgeon and the diplomat have both made clear that the memo was inaccurate. Related: Alistair Carmichael court asked to dismiss legal bid to unseat him The election court is sitting for only the third time in 50 years after a group of constituents raised £88,000 through crowdfunding to challenge Carmichael’s re-election. They argue that it contravenes the Representation of the People Act 1983 because voters were unaware of his involvement in leaking the memo at the time of theelection, due to his initial denial. During a day of highly technical and at times arcane legal argument, which included references to Katharine O’Shea and George Washington’s cherry tree, the discussion centred on the distinction between lies that are political rather than personal in character. According to the act and subsequent case law, Mitchell explained, there is a broad distinction between political statements that parliament “trusted the good sense of the electorate” to be able to discount, and those relating to a candidate’s personal character or conduct, the truth or otherwise of which the electorate might be “unable to discern” in the middle of an election campaign. On Monday, Carmichael’s counsel, Roddy Dunlop QC, argued that his denial was political “from the beginning to the end”. Mitchell contended the opposite, arguing that the fact there is a political background does not disqualify something from being personal. Mitchell told the court: “He puts on to the scales his reputation of personal trustworthiness, and that is purely personal because whether or not the leak is political, nothing in politics called upon him to lie about this.” He clarified that the the criticism of Carmichael did not relate to the leak itself, which he said had been dealt with by a Cabinet Office inquiry, but the then Scotland secretary’s subsequent denial of personal responsibility. He said: “The leak may have been a false statement, but for the purposes of the denial that doesn’t matter. Even if the memo gave an entirely accurate account, the denial of responsibility would remain.” But Dunlop insisted that “falsity does not turn something into a personal issue”. He urged the court “not to be diverted from what is in essence a very simple question. For the purposes of the act, a statement is either personal or political, it cannot be both political and personal”. Adjourning the case on Tuesday afternoon, Paton said the bench would need time to consider the submissions and would issue a written report at a later date. |