CAMPAIGNERS behind the legal bid to have Alistair Carmichael’s General Election result overturned have relaunched their crowdfunding appeal amid fears that Scotland’s only Liberal Democrat MP has resorted to delaying tactics to force up their costs.
The case was brought by four Orkney constituents under the banner “the People v Carmichael” and will open at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on September 7.
More than £61,000 was pledged by nearly 4,000 individuals in the original indiegogo crowdfunding initiative, which ended on June 24 when its target was surpassed. However, within hours of a post by one of the Orkney four yesterday on the Bella Caledonia website, a further £7,000 had been added to the total.
Former Scottish Secretary Carmichael – now his party’s home affairs spokesman – has been under pressure to quit as MP for Orkney and Shetland after he leaked an inaccurate memo about Nicola Sturgeon ahead of the General Election – and then lied about it. The People v Carmichael are hoping the courts will order a rerun of the poll in their constituency.
Carmichael is also at the centre of a formal investigation by Westminster standards watchdog Kathryn Hudson over what has become known as “Frenchgate”.
She will decide if he has breached the Commons Code of Conduct. Carmichael has admitted authorising his special adviser to release a record of a private conversation in which Sturgeon allegedly told the French Ambassador that she would prefer the Tories to remain in power.
However, he repeated a claim that he had not seen the text of the memo until it appeared in the Daily Telegraph.
Carmichael has said he would have resigned over the memo had he still been a government minister.
The MP was one of just eight LibDem survivors of the May 7 election, but his majority of more than 10,000 was slashed to 817 votes by the SNP.
The initial focus of the Court of Session hearing will be points of law that can only be determined by judges of the Electoral Court.
Both sides exchanged documents earlier this week which outlined their arguments and it is understood that Carmichael is arguing that the case is not relevant in Scots law. His legal team is trying to have it dismissed on procedural grounds.
If the petitioners cross that hurdle, the case would move to an evidential stage where their legal team would have to prove that by leaking the memo and lying about it, Carmichael intended to influence his own election result.
This is the first case of its type in Scotland for more than 50 years and such has been the interest that Lady Paton previously indicated that the option of streaming it from the court should be explored.
STV has offered to stream the case live, but Carmichael is thought to have queried who would regulate the broadcast.
This is being regarded as a delaying tactic to push up the petitioners’ costs. Another ploy is believed to relate to Lord Eassie, the other judge involved. A source close to the case told The National: “Lord Eassie was an SNP activist a long time ago and has declared an interest. Both sides have to consent to him continuing as a judge.
“That was two weeks ago and Mr Carmichael still hasn’t given his consent. That is pretty serious because if he’s delaying it as long as possible then it’s racking up costs.”
SNP MP Peter Grant, below, who raised Carmichael’s home affairs appointment in the Commons, said the case was too important to be decided by default.
“I can understand when it’s a case involving someone’s reputation and livelihood that they are allowed reasonable time to prepare a case.
“But it would be a sad day if it could not be heard because delays had left one side unable to meet the anticipated costs.”
Of the four petitioners, three – a pensioner, a carer and a disabled man – could lose their homes if the case goes against them. The fourth is a law student who would not be able to practise as a solicitor should she be bankrupted by it. They have pledged that any cash not used in the action would be distributed to Scottish food bank charities.
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