TWO judges have branded him a blatant liar, his integrity has been shredded in public over the past year and now the same judges have ruled that Alistair Carmichael should pay his own costs after four of his constituents took him to an Election Court over the Frenchgate episode.
The court had previously described the MP’s behaviour as dishonest, lacking in candour and unimpressive, and Lady Paton and Lord Matthews used their discretion in the law to deliver a final, bitter blow yesterday, ruling that the Orkney Four and Carmichael should each pay their own costs.
A crowdfunding campaign by the petitioners has raised nearly £210,000, which may still not be enough to settle their bill. At least they have not had to endure the deserved opprobrium heaped upon their disgraced MP.
One of the most significant features of this sorry case is the decorum exhibited by the petitioners.
They have proved that politicians can – and should – be held to account by those who place their trust in them, and that it can be done without malice or ill will.
The four may not have succeeded in proving “beyond reasonable doubt” that Carmichael committed an offence in law, but they did emerge victorious in two of three legal “chapters” – a case of “divided success”, according to Lady Paton.
From the outset we have supported the Orkney Four, not least because we believe that all elected members should be answerable to their electorate.
However, ordinary voters should not have to raise funds through a public campaign to bring such a challenge. This case has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the law should be changed, that some measure should be put in place to ensure that our representatives are kept on their toes and are accountable.
That might be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas, but we see nothing wrong with amending current codes of conduct to give them more teeth, along with moves to strengthen the Recall of MPs Bill, which has still to be enacted.
Under this legislation voters would be able to force a by-election if their MP was jailed for serious wrongdoing and 10 per cent of his or her constituents signed an election petition. An additional trigger for a by-election would be a vote by MPs to open a recall petition.
We find it hard to believe that many – even in the House of Commons – would object to such a petition in Carmichael’s case.
Which brings us to his crowdfunding campaign, where a flurry of activity followed yesterday’s ruling, grossing an extra few hundred pounds and raising his total to still not much more than £14,000.
To date, Carmichael has not declared any of this crowdfunded cash in the register of MPs’ financial interests – not even the odd four-figure donation – but we are sure he will comply when the time is right.
For now though, as he reflects on another inglorious episode, his thoughts might be turning towards one Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who has yet to report on whether or not he has breached three sections of the MPs Code of Conduct.
We await her report with interest.
Alistair Carmichael faces legal bill up of to £150,000 for 'Frenchgate' case
Andrew Tickell: Extraordinary challenge led to a drama full of twists
Orkney Four who took Carmichael to court: ‘It’s sad that we had to go this far’
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here