Shahbaz’s defamation suit: Judge says Daily Mail must produce evidence

LONDON: London High Court judge Justice Sir Matthew Nicklin relied on allegations in Mail on Sunday’s article by David Rose -- declaring Shahbaz Sharif guilty of corruption, money-laundering and receiving commission -- to rule that the paper will now have to prove that Shahbaz Sharif and his family members “stole” and “embezzled tens of millions of pounds of public money and laundering it in Britain”.

This correspondent was present in the court when Justice Matthew Nicklin ruled during the trial of the meaning that Shahbaz Sharif’s defamation was at chase level 1 – which means that his defamation level was the highest in terms that he was declared guilty of stealing money of the UK taxpayers.

So whats is exactly that the UK High Court judge found were a declaration of guilt and now the evidence must be produced – and it’s most important in view of the fact that Daily Mail’s lawyer backtracked from allegations of money-laundering, corruption and kickbacks during the meaning trial hearing.

The article by David Rose was published in Mail Online and Mail on Sunday on 19 July, 2019 on a two-page spread carrying multiple photos and illustrations of Shahbaz Sharif.

The judge accepted every objection raised by Shahbaz Sharif’s lawyers at the Carter Ruck -- which they complained of as being defamatory and libellous to their client. Justice Nicklin noted that the article started with “did the family of Pakistani politician who has become the poster boy for British overseas aid STEAL funds meant for earthquake victims, asks DAVID ROSE”. The three sub-headlines of the article said that nearly £500 million of UK foreign aid money was given to Punjab but “investigators claim, his family was laundering some of the money in Britain” – a reference to ongoing investigations in Punjab run mainly by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) of Pakistan.

The article published pictures of Shahbaz Sharif with UK’s minsters and prime ministers calling him a “poster boy” of the UK’s foreign aid. The article then went on to criticise the Department for International Development (DFID) praise for Shahbaz Sharif and then made the most damning allegation in categorical terms. David Rose wrote: “All the time that DFID was heaping him and his government with praise and taxpayers’ cash, Shahbaz and his family were embezzling tens of millions of pounds of public money and laundering it in Britain.”

It’s this part of the article that formed the core of Justice Nicklin’s ruling that now the paper must show - nothing else, no hearsay, no allegations and nothing less - but concrete and undeniable proofs that Shahbaz Sharif and family embezzled “tens of millions of pounds of public money and laundering it in Britain”.

The judge said that the paper published Shahbaz’s son Suleman Sharif’s denial in a vague way which wouldn’t convince a reader that the Sharif family spokesman effectively rejected allegations of corruption, money laundering and kickbacks.

Justice Matthew Nikkol ruled that the entire article meant that Shahbaz Sharif is guilty of very specific crimes of money laundering, corruption, commission and kickbacks. The judge ruled that the allegations are so direct and specific that an ordinary reader of these words would think that Sharif was guilty of these acts and therefore the paper must produce evidence that “tens of millions of pounds of public money” and “laundered in Britain” was linked to Shahbaz Sharif and that he was the principal beneficiary of the “elaborate money laundering scheme”.

For David Rose, the task is to convince Daily Mail lawyers that the papers he was shown and handed over by officials in Pakistan prove money laundering and corruption by Shahbaz Sharif.

For the crucial defamation meaning trial, Mail’s lawyers not once but thrice said they don’t have “actual” and “substantial” evidence of money laundering by Shahbaz Sharif and Ali Imran Yousaf.