Shahbaz successful at first round in defamation case

LONDON: The London High Court has ruled in favour of Shahbaz Sharif and his son-in-law in relation to the meaning of reporter David Rose’s article published on July 14, 2019 in which it was alleged that Shahbaz Sharif and his son-in-law were involved in money-laundering and embezzlement of the British money meant for Pakistan’s poor people.

Justice Sir Matthew Nicklin at the London High Court ruled that Mail on Sunday’s article carried the highest level of defamatory meaning for both Shahbaz Sharif and Imran Ali Yousaf. The Daily Mail had contested that the words used in the article were not defamatory but the judge ruled that the level of defamation to Shahbaz Sharif was Chase level 1 – the highest form of defamation in English law – on all counts raised by Sharif’s lawyers in their arguments and Imran Yousaf’s defamation was Chase Level 1 in one instance and Chase Level 2 in another.

In ordinary meaning, the judge meant that the paper declared both of them guilty of corruption (Level 1 - The perception from the article would be that he is guilty. Highest level of defamation); Level 2- He may be guilty of it and there are reasonable grounds; Level 3 - He may be guilty and it requires investigation.”

The court heard arguments from lawyers from all sides. The Associated Newspapers Limited (publishers of Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail) had disputed the defamatory meaning. It is this ruling on the meaning that the newspaper will have to now defend if the case goes to the trial.

Daily Mail’s lawyer said: “actual detailed evidence against Shahbaz Sharif is pretty limited, based on assumptions but his luxurious house is relied on”.

Rejecting arguments of Daily Mail’s lawyer, Justice Nicklin ruled that an ordinary reader in Britain would have understood the meaning to be establishing that Shahbaz Sharif was involved in corruption, embezzlement in the Earthquake Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) and DFID funds as well as money-laundering.

Carter Ruck released a short statement on behalf of Shahbaz Sharif soon after the judgment. It quoted Shahbaz Sharif as saying: “Mr Sharif said this is the first step towards clearing my name from the Mail on Sunday’s false allegations which should never have been published.”

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. She said the allegation in the article that Imran Ali Yousaf “mysteriously accumulated” money due to the fact that his in-laws were in power was far from the truth.

The Mail lawyer defended publication of the article and said that it was in the public interest and it always happens that investigations are

carried out after such stories are published pointing out wrongdoings.

David Rose said in a tweet after the judgment went on Pakistani media: “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.”

Shahzad Akbar said in a tweet: “Today’s hearing in London was a ‘meanings hearing’ where the judge was to rule what the article meant. Shabaz and Ali Imran have NOT WON the case against Daily Mail. The judge made similar remark when he refused to award costs to any party.”

Ali Raza adds from Lahore: Commenting on the development, PML-N Secretary Information Marriyum Aurangzeb said the decision of the British court was a resounding slap on Imran Khan’s face that exposed his vicious witch-hunt against the PML-N leadership.