Alistair Carmichael memo election challenge dismissed by Judges
Judges have dismissed a legal challenge to the election of Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael which was brought after a leaked memo ahead of May's general election.
Judges have dismissed a legal challenge to the election of Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael which was brought after a leaked memo ahead of May's general election.
The ruling follows a three-day Election Court hearing last month after four of Mr Carmichael's constituents launched a bid to oust him from his Orkney and Shetland seat.
The constituents claimed Mr Carmichael misled voters with his actions surrounding the leaking of a confidential memo which wrongly claimed First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she wanted David Cameron to remain in Downing Street at the general election. They argued his actions called into question his integrity as an individual and his suitability to represent the constituency at Westminster.
But a ruling issued by judges dismissed the petition, saying it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had committed an illegal practice''.
In a Channel 4 interview, Mr Carmichael initially denied having prior knowledge of the memo leak, which emerged about a month before voters went to the polls.
Following 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 April 3.
The legal challenge - funded via a crowdfunding appeal - was brought under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
It states that ''a person who ... before or during an election, for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election, makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice''.
Lady Paton and Lord Matthews had earlier ruled that Section 106 could apply to a candidate making a false statement about himself rather than attacking someone else, despite Mr Carmichael's legal team asking them to throw out the case.
They heard evidence to determine whether Mr Carmichael's statement amounted to ''false statements of fact'' about his own personal character or conduct, and whether they were uttered for ''the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election''.
The judges concluded Mr Carmichael had told a blatant lie'' in the course of the Channel 4 interview on April 5 this year.
But they were left with a reasonable doubt'' on whether the lie could properly be characterised as a false statement of factin relation to his personal character or conduct''.
Lady Paton said: 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.
In the present case, when speaking to the Channel 4 interviewer, the first respondent (Mr Carmichael) did not make such an express statement about his personal character or conduct.
We are not persuaded that the false statement proved to have been made was in relation to anything other than the first respondent's awareness (or lack of awareness) of a political machination.
Accordingly, we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the words used by the first respondent amounted to a 'false statement of fact in relation to his personal character or conduct'.
It follows that we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an essential element of section 106 has been proved.''
The judges said that conclusion was sufficient for the resolution on the case, but went on to give their opinion on the second point.
Lady Paton said they were satisfied it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt Mr Carmichael made the false statement of fact for the purpose of affecting (positively) his own return at the election''.
She said: In his view, if public attention remained focused on that political message, voters who had anxieties about Scottish independence might find voting for the SNP a less attractive prospect ...The inescapable inference, in our opinion, is that if the SNP became a less attractive prospect, the first respondent's chances of a comfortable majority in what had become a 'two-horse race' in Orkney and Shetland would be enhanced.''
She added: On the basis of all the evidence led before us, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that another purpose underlying the false statement was self-protection (a self-protection extending to Mr Roddin, provided that neither of them could be identified).
Such self-protection would avoid attracting critical comment, losing esteem in the public eye, and being the subject of any disciplinary consequences, all at a very inconvenient time during the lead-up to the election.
Such self-protection would avoid his presenting as a less attractive electoral candidate for the voters in Orkney and Shetland.''