“WE HAD no concerns about the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, with one exception.” A teller of “blatant” lies. “Unimpressive,” his behaviour demonstrating “a lack of candour.” In his actions, “at best disingenuous, at worst evasive and self-serving”. That was the election court’s verdict yesterday on the character and conduct of the Right Honourable Mr Alistair Morrison Carmichael MP, duly elected representative of the people of Orkney and Shetland. But for all of the heavy judicial artillery trained on the Liberal Democrat’s battered reputation – Carmichael survived. No violation of section 106 of the Representation of the People Act here, Lady Paton and Lord Matthews concluded. Petition dismissed.

Why? From the beginning, the petitioners faced an uphill struggle. Using an old and muddled law in a new way, few seriously rated their chances. Some commentators went still further. This was a “witch hunt”, they said, a vindictive, empty legal suit which our douce Scottish judges would dispose of tout suite. Not so. The petitioners, represented by Jonathan Mitchell QC, won on point after legal point. They persuaded the court that the penalties of election law must strike not only at those who blacken the characters of others, but also at politicians who paint themselves, falsely, as whiter than white. They persuaded the judges that the Act also catches what Carmichael’s silk described as “self-talking” – making false statements about your own personal character or conduct.

Rejecting Carmichael’s evidence as lacking credibility and reliability, the judges also concluded that the MP’s lies were motivated by his own tough race. During the proof, Carmichael claimed that he hadn’t for a second considered his own campaign, in telling Channel 4 that he had no idea how the incriminating memo had found its way into the pages of the Telegraph newspaper. His leaking had a political purpose, he admitted, but he was majestically indifferent to his own fate.

The court wasn’t having it. Lady Paton concluded Carmichael’s explanation, under oath, was simply implausible. “The inescapable inference,” she said, “is that if the SNP became a less attractive prospect, the first respondent’s chances of a comfortable majority in what had become a two-horse race in Orkney and Shetland would be enhanced.” The Court was “satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the false statement of fact was made for the purpose of affecting (positively) the return of the first respondent as a Liberal Democrat in the constituency of Orkney and Shetland.”

All that remained was the tricky lawyer’s question at the heart of this strange trial. Were the former Secretary of State’s lies really about his personal character or conduct? The Lib Dem maintained throughout that they were political, not personal, fibs. But the onus – the burden of proof – lay on the petitioners. It was for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Carmichael’s lies had “related to his personal character or conduct” under section 106. And for Lord Matthews and Lady Paton, the evidence just wasn’t there.

They held that: “If a candidate made a false statement that he ‘would never leak an internal confidential memo, no matter how helpful that might be to his party, as he regarded the practice of leaking confidential information as dishonest and morally reprehensible (all the more so if the information was inaccurate), and he personally would not stoop to such tactics’, when in fact that candidate had leaked an internal confidential memo containing material which was inaccurate and highly damaging to an opponent, we would be likely to conclude that the candidate had given a false statement “in relation to his personal character or conduct.”

But what about Carmichael? Didn’t he hold himself out as a figure of “honesty, honour, trustworthiness and integrity”? Not so, said Paton. Leaking is rife in Westminster. You can’t assume your MP is trustworthy. But in his now-infamous Channel 4 interview, Carmichael “did not expressly make a false statement to the effect that his personal character and conduct was such that he would never be involved in a leaking exercise. What he said was a blatant but simple lie about his lack of awareness of one particular leak.” What wasn’t clear was “whether his lie can be construed as proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was making a false statement about himself to the effect that he was someone who was upright, honourable, trustworthy, and straightforward, and therefore would not be involved in the leak.” Carmichael receives the benefit of the doubt. He keeps his seat. Case closed.

Few observers ever anticipated this action would come this far. Yesterday’s judgement underscores the view that this was a serious, well-founded case, rooted in the law. Fortified by the court’s judgment in his favour, Carmichael came out fighting. Parliament Square smoked with the scent of burning martyr, as the cameras recorded his unrepentant, untouched reaction to this judicial demolition of his character. But make no mistake. There is no vindication for Alistair Carmichael in the election court’s determination. Only survival.

Lesley Riddoch: The failure of the Orkney Four's suit against Carmichael is less crucial than its objectives

Orkney Four claim ‘we won a defeat’ in Carmichael case

The National View: Pointless to expect this self-confessed liar to show shred of decency

Who are the Orkney Four?

The Orkney Four: Tim Morrison admits they're a rabble but not a political one ...

The Orkney Four: Cary Welling thought Carmichael implied he was above dirty tricks

The Orkney Four: Phaemie Matheson was fed up of MPS acting as if they were untouchable

The Orkney Four: Fiona Grahame cannot forgive Carmichael's continued deceit