Morrison v Carmichael Court of Session (Election Court Inner House) [2015] ScotCS ECIH_90 (09 December 2015)

Morrison v Carmichael Court of Session (Election Court Inner House) [2015] ScotCS ECIH_90 (09 December 2015)

The court held that although the respondent made a false statement about his awareness of the leak, the statement did not amount to a false statement of fact in relation to his personal character or conduct within the meaning of section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The statement was found to relate to a specific political event rather than to the respondent's general character or conduct. Therefore, an essential element of section 106 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the petition was refused.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS ECIH_90
Parties
Petitioners: Timothy Denis Morrison and Others; First Respondent: Alistair Carmichael MP; Second Respondent: Alistair Buchan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Final Determination After Evidential Hearing
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
False Statements in Election Campaigns, Section 106 Representation of the People Act 1983, Illegal Practices in Elections, Standard of Proof in Election Petitions
Election Law Public Law False Statements in Election Campaigns Section 106 Representation of the People Act 1983 Illegal Practices in Elections Standard of Proof in Election Petitions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Denis Morrison and Others

Petitioners

Alistair Carmichael MP

First Respondent

Alistair Buchan

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Final Determination After Evidential Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent made a false statement of fact in relation to his personal character or conduct within the meaning of section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether the false statement was made for the purpose of affecting the return of the respondent at the election

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the respondent made a false statement about his awareness of the leak, the statement did not amount to a false statement of fact in relation to his personal character or conduct within the meaning of section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The statement was found to relate to a specific political event rather than to the respondent's general character or conduct. Therefore, an essential element of section 106 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the petition was refused.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • The first respondent has not been proved to have committed an illegal practice in terms of section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
  • The first respondent was duly elected.