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/uk-news/2015/dec/09/alistair-carmichael-lib-dem-election-court-throws-out-attempt-to-unseat-mp

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Alistair Carmichael: election court throws out attempt to unseat MP Alistair Carmichael: election court rejects attempt to unseat MP
(about 2 hours later)
An election court has thrown out an attempt to unseat the Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael after he admitted lying about his role in leaking a memo about Nicola Sturgeon. An election court has thrown out an attempt to unseat the Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael, even though he told a “blatant lie” about the leak of a memo about Nicola Sturgeon.
Two judges in Edinburgh ruled that it had not been proved that the former Scotland secretary’s dishonesty about the memo in a Channel 4 News interview was intended to mislead voters in his Orkney and Shetland constituency about his personal conduct. Two judges in Edinburgh ruled that Carmichael lied about the leak but said it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the former Scotland secretary’s dishonesty was designed to mislead voters in his Orkney and Shetland constituency about his personal conduct.
The court of session said Lady Paton and Lord Matthews had refused the petition by four voters in Carmichael’s constituency because “it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had committed an illegal practice under the terms of the Representation of the People’s Act 1983”. Despite clearing him of breaching the Representation of the People Act 1983, the judges were damning about his conduct. Carmichael authorised the leak of allegations that Sturgeon had secretly backed David Cameron to win the general election when she met the French ambassador, Sylvie Bermann, in March.
Their ruling follows a rare attempt to strike down an MP’s election under the act. The four voters in Orkney and Shetland raised nearly £165,000 through crowdfunding to pay for their legal action. The judges said his constituents were “justifiably shocked and dismayed” that he had repeatedly lied about his role before the election. They would have felt “shock, outrage and upset” the judges said, fuelling immediate calls from his critics for Carmichael to resign voluntarily.
Carmichael is Scotland’s sole remaining Lib Dem MP, having held his seat in May’s general election with a substantially reduced majority of 817 votes. Tim Morrison, one of the four petitioners who have so far raised nearly £165,000 to take the case to a rare election court, said the judges’ opinion about Carmichael was personally devastating and would irreparably damage his reputation in Orkney and Shetland.
Carmichael said he was satisfied with the ruling. A former state prosecutor, he said he had always been confident of winning but “the last few months have been a difficult and stressful time for me and my family”. The court had upheld two of their three complaints, so Carmichael had won “on the slimmest of legal technicalities,” the group said.
He added: “This case was politically motivated. It was a deliberate attempt by nationalists to remove the last Scottish Liberal voice at Westminster, and is a mark of the unhealthy polarisation of Scottish politics since the referendum. I shall continue to represent Orkney and Shetland as a member of parliament to the best of my ability, as I have done for the past 14 years.” “Carmichael has been demonstrated, by two judges in a court, to have lied, to manipulate the results of an election here,” Morrison said. “That’s unacceptable, he must resign now. Who’s going to trust that man?”
The election court heard that Carmichael authorised his then special adviser, Euan Roddin, to leak a Scotland Office memo to the Daily Telegraph which stated that Sturgeon had purportedly told the French ambassador, Sylvie Bermann, that she privately wanted David Cameron and the Conservatives to win the UK general election. Carmichael, who acknowledged on Wednesday that the affair had caused him and his family great stress, still faces two potentially damaging battles.
If true, it would have been politically sensational: the first minister had been telling voters she wanted Labour to win and form an anti-Tory alliance at Westminster. However, the memo’s account was immediately repudiated by both Sturgeon and Pierre-Alain Coffinier, the then French consul general. They denied that the first minister had made that remark. Kathryn Hudson, the House of Commons standards commissioner, is investigating whether he broke three parts of the code of conduct for MPs on protecting the public interest, breaching confidentiality and upholding the reputation and integrity of the Commons.
The hearings heard very detailed and highly critical attacks on Carmichael’s conduct after the memo was leaked: he admitted his role in authorising the leak to his colleagues and the Cabinet Office only after the general election, when his majority had been slashed by 92%. Carmichael could be asked to apologise or have his case referred to MPs on the Commons standards committee for a further inquiry and possible sanctions, including his suspension from parliament if Hudson rules against him.
Jonathan Mitchell QC, acting for the petitioners, accused the MP of repeatedly and deliberately lying to his voters, his own party, the civil service leak inquiry and to the media about his involvement in the leak throughout the election campaign. Carmichael is also being advised by his allies to fight to recover his legal costs from the four petitioners, all constituents of his. They hope to raise a total of £208,000 in preparation for a court hearing on dividing up the legal costs.
Mitchell had won one early victory in the proceedings, after the court ruled for the first time that the wording of the 1983 act covered attempts by a candidate to talk up their own character or to conceal their own misbehaviour. Until then, the act was thought only to focus on candidates smearing or abusing their opponents. Carmichael’s crowdfunding appeal has been far less successful, raising only £8,340. A senior Scottish Lib Dem source said: “He has been personally left with a pretty hefty bill. [I] don’t think he seeks any vindictive redress from the petitioners but their costs were crowdfunded. If the boot was on the other foot, they would be seeking their costs from him.”
In its final decision, the court agreed with Carmichael’s lawyer, Roddy Dunlop QC, that the case hinged on the precise wording of the petition to the court, which only referred to Carmichael’s interview with Channel 4 News and did not complain about any other parts of his conduct. A former prosecutor, Carmichael said he was relieved by the verdict but furious about the decision to mount the action against him. “This case was politically motivated,” he said. “It was a deliberate attempt by nationalists to remove the last Scottish Liberal voice at Westminster, and is a mark of the unhealthy polarisation of Scottish politics since the referendum.
In a summary of the decision, Paton referred to the precise words used by Carmichael in the Channel 4 News interview two days after the Telegraph published the memo. “I shall continue to represent Orkney and Shetland as a member of parliament to the best of my ability, as I have done for the past 14 years.”
She said: “There is no dispute that the words ‘I told you the first I became aware of this, and this is already on public record, was when I received a phone call on Friday afternoon [ie Friday 3 April 2015] from a journalist making me aware of it’ constituted a false statement of fact, in other words, a lie. The election court heard that Carmichael authorised his then special adviser, Euan Roddin, to leak the Scotland Office memo to the Daily Telegraph, based on a briefing from Pierre-Alain Coffinier, the then French consul general.
“Obviously [Carmichael] had been aware of the existence of the memo and its contents as described to him by Mr Roddin since the flight to the Faroe Islands in March 2015. Moreover, he had authorised Mr Roddin to release the memo to the Daily Telegraph.” Carmichael believed it was true that Sturgeon secretly wanted Cameron and the Conservatives to win the UK general election and not Labour, as she had claimed. But the memo’s account was immediately repudiated by both Sturgeon and Coffinier. They denied that the first minister had made that remark.
But Mitchell had not proved that that deception was designed to deceive voters in Carmichael’s seat. The judges had reasonable doubt that this lie was about Carmichael’s personal character and conduct. The hearings heard very detailed and highly critical attacks on Carmichael’s conduct after the memo was leaked: he only admitted his role in authorising the leak to his colleagues and the Cabinet Office after the general election, when his majority had been slashed by 92%.
“It is of the essence of section 106 that it does not apply to lies in general: it applies only to lies in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate made before or during an election for the purpose of affecting that candidate’s return,” Paton said. Jonathan Mitchell QC, acting for the petitioners, accused the MP of repeatedly and deliberately lying to his voters, his own party, the civil service leak inquiry and the media about his involvement in the leak throughout the election campaign.
A senior Lib Dem source said Carmichael was considering whether to seek costs against the petitioners but had not made a final decision. He had to fund his legal costs largely out of his own pocket and with some party support. The petitioners are now seeking to raise a total of £208,000. Mitchell won one early victory in the proceedings when the court ruled for the first time that the wording of the 1983 act also included attempts by a candidate to talk up their own character or to conceal their own misbehaviour. Until then, the act was thought only to focus on candidates smearing or abusing their opponents.
Carmichael’s attempt to raise funds through crowdsourcing, launched in September, five months later than his opponents, have been far less successful, raising only £8,340 so far. In its final decision, the court agreed with Carmichael’s lawyer, Roddy Dunlop QC, that the case before them hinged on the precise wording of the petition to the court, which referred only to Carmichael’s interview with Channel 4 News and did not complain about any other parts of his conduct.
“He’s being encouraged by other people to consider seeking costs,” the source said. “He has been personally left with a pretty hefty bill. [I] don’t think he seeks any vindictive redress from the petitioners but their costs were crowdfunded. If the boot was on the other foot, they would be seeking their costs from him.” In that interview, Carmichael was not asked whether he had leaked the memo but whether he had known that it existed. He lied about his knowledge of its existence but not about his role in leaking it.
In a brief statement following the judgment, the four petitioners said: “We are disappointed but see the win as caveated by damning comments on Mr Carmichael’s behaviour by the judges. [The] case has been lost on the slimmest of legal technicalities. It is more of a loss for Alistair Carmichael than a win.” The judges said that lie was designed to protect his own and his party’s political interests, but they had reasonable doubt that this lie was designed to protect Carmichael’s personal character and conduct – the key test under section 106 of the 1983 act.
They said the judges had ruled in their favour on two of three grounds for the case, and had agreed with the complainants that Carmichael had lied about the affair to protect himself and to protect his chances of reelection – an action which met a key test under the 1983 act. The judges concluded: “Ultimately, [Carmichael’s] unimpressive response to the inquiry, although showing him in a bad light, and resulting in his constituents being initially misled and then justifiably shocked and dismayed on discovering that they had been so misled, cannot alter our conclusion that section 106 does not, on a proper application of the law to the facts proved, apply in this case.”
They expressed sympathy for Orkney and Shetland voters, and said the revelation on 22 May that Carmichael had deliberately covered-up his role in the leak “very much enhanced the shock, outrage and upset felt by his constituents.”
The judges concluded: “Ultimately, however, [Carmichael’s] unimpressive response to the inquiry, although showing him in a bad light, and resulting in his constituents being initially misled and then justifiably shocked and dismayed on discovering that they had been so misled, cannot alter our conclusion that section 106 does not, on a proper application of the law to the facts proved, apply in this case.