ALISTAIR Carmichael has expressed “disappointment” at a court ruling that means he now faces having to pay a legal bill of £150,000 despite winning his case.
The former Scottish Secretary – who still awaits the outcome of a probe into his conduct by Westminster’s standards commissioner – had hoped to recover two-thirds of his legal costs, which would have left him with a bill of around £50,000.
But, after hearing legal arguments, the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that the case was one with a “divided success,” and concluded: "Accordingly, we find no expenses due to or by any party."
Mr Carmichael, the MP for Orkney and Shetland, issued a terse statement, saying: “Having won the case, this ruling is disappointing.
“However, the court has absolute discretion in these matters. We will now consider how these costs will be met. As has been the case since I was elected, my focus will remain serving the people of Orkney and Shetland at Parliament to the best of my ability.”
In December, after winning the court case, the former cabinet minister said he was determined to draw a line under it and move on but, admitting the case had cost him £150,000 in legal fees, noted: “I do not come from a rich background. Everything we have, my wife and I have earned. So the financial aspect of this could be with us for some time to come."
Following the court ruling, Tim Morrison, one of the four petitioners in the case, said: "I am obviously relieved, intensely, and feeling vindicated."
The rare Election Court action was brought under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
This 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''.
The judges found that while Mr Carmichael had told a ''blatant lie'' during a television interview about the leaked document, which wrongly claimed First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she wanted David Cameron to remain in Downing Street, it had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt he had committed an ''illegal practice''.
The case centred on a Channel 4 interview on April 5 when the then Scottish Secretary 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 later admitted he had allowed his special adviser Euan Roddin to release details of the document, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on April 3.
Roddy Dunlop QC, acting for Mr Carmichael, had argued "expenses should follow success" after the legal challenge was dismissed.
He said it was "frankly inconceivable" that if the four petitioners had succeeded, they would not have sought expenses against the MP.
But Jonathan Mitchell QC, for the petitioners, told the court there had been a public interest in bringing the case and pointed out they had successfully argued several points.
"This is not a petition brought frivolously or vexatiously, and indeed Mr Dunlop has not suggested that it was,” he argued.
"It would simply not be just if the petitioners, having brought this case, having got the public to support them, as to a limited extent the respondent has, should then be told that they have to pay the expenses of his uncandid defence."
After hearing the legal arguments, Lady Paton said: "In all the circumstances, exercising our discretion, we consider this to be in effect a case with divided success. Accordingly, we find no expenses due to or by any party."
The petitioners have raised almost £210,000 towards their legal fees via a crowdfunding appeal while a separate crowdfunder set up by a friend of Mr Carmichael has raised more than £14,500 towards his expenses.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel