Frenchgate: Alistair Carmichael fails in bid to have legal fees paid

In last year’s landmark case, four of his constituents raised an action against him under the Representation of the People Act 1983 in the Election Court.

They argued he had misled voters over a leaked memo before the general election. But judges ruled in December last year that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt Mr Carmichael had committed an “illegal practice”.

Nevertheless, he will now have to pay his own legal fees. At a hearing in theCourt of Session, 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.”

Roddy Dunlop QC (pictured right) had argued that “expenses should follow success” following the outcome of the case.

He added it was “frankly inconceivable” the four petitioners would not have sought the same had they won.

He said: “Mr Carmichael is not a rich man.

“To force him to endure this process which has been hugely distressing for him and his family, and deprive him of any redress when he successfully defends himself, it would not be in the interests of justice. It would not be fair.

He added: “Mr Carmichael has already suffered very publicly the consequences of this court’s rebuke.

“It would not be fair in a situation where he has from the outset denied any breach of section 106 to saddle on him the entire costs of defending this simply because the court was unimpressed by his behaviour.”

But Jonathan Mitchell QC (pictured right), for the petitioners, pointed to the fact the petitioners had successfully argued a number of points and that the case was in the public interest.

He said: “The truth is this is a case which is brought upon himself by the respondent (Mr Carmichael) in which he acted throughout with a lack of candour, in truth he accepted in his own evidence that his position was thoroughly dishonest.

“This is not a petition brought frivolously or vexatiously, and indeed Mr Dunlop has not suggested that it was.”

He noted the court had described Mr Carmichael’s behaviour as “shocking, outrageous, dishonest, lacking in candour and unimpressive”.

He added: “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.”