This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/12/date-set-legal-challenge-alistair-carmichael-election-former-scottish-secretary

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Date set for legal challenge to Alistair Carmichael's election Date set for legal challenge to Alistair Carmichael's election
(about 3 hours later)
Judges have set a date to hear evidence in a legal challenge to the election of the former Scottish secretary Alistair Carmichael.Judges have set a date to hear evidence in a legal challenge to the election of the former Scottish secretary Alistair Carmichael.
A four-day election court hearing will take place at the court of session buildings in Edinburgh from 9 November.A four-day election court hearing will take place at the court of session buildings in Edinburgh from 9 November.
Four of Carmichael’s constituents, known as the petitioners in the case, have launched a bid to oust him after he admitted allowing a confidential memo to be leaked. The document wrongly claimed the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, wanted David Cameron to remain in Downing Street after May’s general election.Four of Carmichael’s constituents, known as the petitioners in the case, have launched a bid to oust him after he admitted allowing a confidential memo to be leaked. The document wrongly claimed the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, wanted David Cameron to remain in Downing Street after May’s general election.
Judges Lady Paton and Lord Matthews ruled on Monday that the next stage of proceedings could take place in the capital rather than in Carmichael’s constituency of Orkney and Shetland.Judges Lady Paton and Lord Matthews ruled on Monday that the next stage of proceedings could take place in the capital rather than in Carmichael’s constituency of Orkney and Shetland.
Evidence given by witnesses would not be broadcast live, as in earlier legal hearings, but submissions from each side in the case would be televised, they said during a procedural hearing at the court.Evidence given by witnesses would not be broadcast live, as in earlier legal hearings, but submissions from each side in the case would be televised, they said during a procedural hearing at the court.
Paton said: “The next stage of the trial comprises first evidence and witnesses and productions and second submissions. We are minded ... to permit live broadcasting of the submissions, including all references to what witnesses have said.”Paton said: “The next stage of the trial comprises first evidence and witnesses and productions and second submissions. We are minded ... to permit live broadcasting of the submissions, including all references to what witnesses have said.”
Paton said questioning of witnesses would be “more adversarial than inquisitorial” with the possibility of “serious consequences” after the hearing.Paton said questioning of witnesses would be “more adversarial than inquisitorial” with the possibility of “serious consequences” after the hearing.
The presence of cameras would “create a risk to the proper administration of justice”, she said. The presence of cameras would “create a risk to the proper administration of justice,” she said.
“We are content that special circumstances have been shown and that the next stage of the trial should take place in Edinburgh.”“We are content that special circumstances have been shown and that the next stage of the trial should take place in Edinburgh.”
Carmichael’s legal team has been given until 26 October to lodge a list of witnesses they intend to call, which could include the MP himself.Carmichael’s legal team has been given until 26 October to lodge a list of witnesses they intend to call, which could include the MP himself.
Jonathan Mitchell QC, representing the petitioners, told the court: “I assume that they are calling him. Beyond Mr Carmichael it’s not apparent to me that there is any other useful evidence that could be led on the respondent’s side.”Jonathan Mitchell QC, representing the petitioners, told the court: “I assume that they are calling him. Beyond Mr Carmichael it’s not apparent to me that there is any other useful evidence that could be led on the respondent’s side.”
In a Channel 4 interview, Carmichael initially denied having prior knowledge of the memo leak, which emerged around a month before voters went to the polls.In a Channel 4 interview, Carmichael initially denied having prior knowledge of the memo leak, which emerged around a month before voters went to the polls.
After a Cabinet Office inquiry he admitted he had allowed his special adviser Euan Roddin to release details of the document, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 3 April.After a Cabinet Office inquiry he admitted he had allowed his special adviser Euan Roddin to release details of the document, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 3 April.
The petitioners argue his actions call into question his integrity as an individual and his suitability to represent the constituency at Westminster. Their action has been brought under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.The petitioners argue his actions call into question his integrity as an individual and his suitability to represent the constituency at Westminster. Their action has been brought under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.