Follow Us on Google News
LONDON: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) President Shehbaz Sharif and his son-in-law Imran Ali Yousaf have won the first round of a defamation case against the Daily Mail newspaper for an article by British journalist David Rose.
Justice Matthew Nicklin, of the London High Court, read out an initial ruling in a hearing for the case in favour of both Sharif and Yousaf, adding the article have contained words that damaged the reputation of the defendants.
He observed that the words used in the article in question authored by David Rose for the Daily Mail can be considered slanderous. He declared that the article was “Chase Level 1 defamation” which means the highest form of defamation, and were declared guilty of corruption on the basis of presumptions.
British journalist David Rose who wrote an investigative piece on Shehbaz Sharif has responded to the verdict of a court’s hearing earlier and said the trial has yet to begin.
The journalist tweeted, saying, “It seems some in Pakistan are claiming that the London judge in today’s hearing in the Shehbaz Sharif case has said our evidence is not “up to the mark.” “This is untrue,” he said.
He added the Judge made no such comment. “Today’s hearing is not a victory for anyone. It was strictly preliminary.” Rose said the judgment ‘Sets the parameters for the eventual trial, which lies in the future”.
Contrary to some Pakistani reports, today’s hearing in the Shahbaz Sharif defamation case is strictly preliminary. The judgment sets the parameters for the eventual trial, which lies in the future: it determines what the court says the article means. It is NOT a final outcome.
— David Rose (@DavidRoseUK) February 5, 2021
The lawyer for the Daily Mail said that actual detailed evidence against Shehbaz Sharif about corruption and the money laundering allegation is “pretty limited and based on assumptions” that he “lives in a palace” in Lahore.
The lawyer Andrew Caldecott QC said paper concedes that there were money-laundering allegations against Shehbaz and his family but this doesn’t mean that there was no money-laundering as alleged in David Rose’s article.
Justice Nicklin remarked that he has read the material put before him by both sides. He said he was aware of proceedings in Pakistan involving Shehbaz Sharif but he had read nothing about them.
The publication’s lawyer quoted Prime Minister’s adviser Shahzad Akbar’s statement that money laundering investigation had started in Pakistan leading to the discovery of a huge amount.
The lawyer for Shehbaz Sharif told the judge that the article illustrated connections between Shehbaz and the UK government and then alleged that he was involved in corruption.
The lawyer Adrienne Page took the court through the whole article and said it was defamatory from the start, lacked and made baseless allegations of fraud and money-laundering.
She further said that the article declared that he was “guilty of corruption” and “beneficiary of the laundered money from the UK. The allegation of laundered money was conveyed as a fact in the article.
The lawyer said that Shehbaz’s son denied the money-laundering and corruption allegations, but the paper used Akbar and Transparency International’s statements to slander her client.
Barrister Victoria Simon-Shore appeared for Shahbaz Sharif’s son-in-law Imran Ali Yousaf. She told the court that her client rejected all allegations of corruption, misuse of funds, and money-laundering,
The British tabloid’s lawyer defended the publication of the article and said that it was in the public interest and investigations are carried out after such articles are published pointing out wrongdoings.
It is pertinent to mention here that the paper had alleged that Shehbaz Sharif was involved in misusing the funds given to Pakistan by United Kingdom. The report said the DFID invested more than £500 million of into Punjab in the form of aid during Shehbaz’s tenure as chief minister.
