“WE wish to hear evidence.” A little phrase, but for Alistair Carmichael, a politically and personally devastating one.

The former Secretary of State for Scotland’s litigation strategy was straightforward. Instructing the formidable Roddy Dunlop QC, Carmichael hoped to have the case against him kicked from the court on legal grounds, without a breath of evidence being heard. In a trice: case closed, election upheld.

He had every chance of succeeding. The petitioners’ argument is based on an untested interpretation of an old, arcane statute. Election law recognises candidates can only be penalised for lies about “personal character and conduct”.

Political lies, by contrast, are fair game. Judges don’t like becoming embroiled in politics. The deck seemed stacked in Carmichael’s favour.

Before the hearing, he seemed supremely confident, his LibDem allies briefing the media this was a baseless and eccentric case, a witch-hunt by oddballs against a fine man who had done something stupid during the white heat of a close election campaign.

Lady Paton’s judgment dynamites that complacent analysis. Carmichael must now gird his loins to be cross-examined by Jonathan Mitchell QC live on TV. “Would you describe yourself as an honest man, Mr Carmichael? Do you think your constituents regard you as an honest man? When you told Channel 4 that you were not involved in the leaking of this document, that was a lie, wasn’t it?’’

Even for the non-politician, this isn’t a good look. For someone in public life to sweat their way through damaging testimony under the glare of the cameras is excruciating. Career-ending, you might well think, even if Carmichael ultimately prevails.

And make no mistake: on the evidence of yesterday’s opinion from Lady Paton and Lord Matthews, that conclusion to this case cannot be ruled out. Carmichael isn’t dead yet. While he was comprehensively gubbed on the law, the petitioners needed to win each and every point just to survive. There remains every possibility that the court will conclude, on the evidence, that Carmichael’s lies were political rather than personal in character.

You will remember, his lawyers weaved a formidable range of objections to the election petition raised by four of Carmichael’s constituents. The petitioners argue the northern isles MP lied about his own personal character and conduct in concealing his involvement in the Telegraph’s Nikkileaks escapade. They contend Carmichael’s slipperiness had one motive only: to maintain a false image of his probity, better to win his tight race against Danus Skene. The petitioners don’t have to count the ballots which Carmichael’s lies might have secured for him. If the election court is satisfied that he lied about his personal conduct and character, he is toast.

But through his counsel, Carmichael hit back, contending that the Orkney four were mistaken on at least four points of law. Firstly, he suggested the Representations of the People Act couldn’t apply to candidates fibbing about themselves, applying instead only to politicians who trash the reputations of opponents. Not so said Lady Paton and Lord Matthews yesterday, holding that the plain language of the Act told a different story. It applied to any “person” – candidate or punter – who peddled falsehoods in the election campaign.

But surely, Carmichael suggested, the Act should only apply to lies which are hostile, which “attack, disparage, or vilify”? Surely it couldn’t be used to unseat a politician who had been a touch economical with the actualités? This was another legal proposition shot down in flames. The Act talks only of falsehoods. It doesn’t distinguish between those which paint the candidate in a bleak or positive light.

Carmichael’s strongest line of attack was that his leak was a political act – and accordingly, his lying was also “nothing personal”. Why Carmichael lied is also critical. The petitioners must persuade the court that Carmichael lied to boost his prospects of re-election in the northern isles. Anything else won’t do.

Yesterday’s judgment leaves these questions unresolved. The election court hasn’t found either way. All it has said is: “We need to hear the evidence.”

Nevertheless for Scotland’s sole surviving Liberal Democrat MP, who has never looked in a comfortable position since the General Election, political life just got a whole lot worse.

Court rules disgraced Carmichael has case to answer over false memo