London Supreme Court Judge Sir Matthew Nicklin anticipates Mail’s accusations in David Rose’s Sunday article, in which he finds Shahbaz Sharif guilty of corruption, money laundering and the commission to rule newspapers must now prove Shahbaz Sharif and his family “stole”. and “embezzled tens of millions of pounds of public money and dumped it in England.”
This correspondent was present in court when Judge Matthew Niklin ruled during the trial, meaning that Shahbaz Sharif’s defamation was at level 1 prosecution – meaning that his defamation rate was the highest in that regard. He was found guilty of stealing British tax money.
The same thing the UK Supreme Court judge found was a plea of guilt and now evidence needs to be presented – and this is especially important given the Daily Mail’s lawyers are retracting the laundering charges. Money, corruption and rejection, while court hearings.
David Rose’s article was published on Sunday, 19 July 2019, in Mail Online and Mail in a two-page distribution featuring multiple photos and illustrations by Shahbaz Sharif.
The judge accepted every objection made by Shahbaz Sharif’s attorney to Carter Ruck, which they complained of as defamation and defamation of their client. Judge Nicklin noted that the article began with “whether the family of a Pakistani politician who became the poster of UK STEAL external aid funds for earthquake victims” asked DAVID ROSE. Three sub-headings of the article say Punjab has received nearly $ 500 million in foreign aid, but “Investigators say his family laundered some of the money in Britain” – an indication of ongoing investigations in Punjab, particularly from Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau (JEPRET).
The article published photos of Shahbaz Sharif with British ministers and prime ministers who described him as a “puppet” of British foreign aid. The article then criticized the Ministry of International Development (DFID) ‘s praise for Shahbaz Sharif and went on to make the most gruesome remarks. David Rose wrote: “As long as DFID raised him and his government with credit and taxpayer money, Shahbaz and his family have embezzled tens of millions of pounds in public funds and solicited them in Britain.”
It is this part of the article that forms the heart of Judge Niklin’s decision that the newspaper has to show – nothing else, no rumors, no accusations and nothing less – but concrete and incontrovertible evidence that Shahbaz Sharif and his family “Dozens” have been abused. millions of pounds of public money and money laundering in the UK.
The judge said the newspaper was vaguely publishing denials against Shahbaz’s son, Suleman Sharif, which would fail to convince readers that Sharif’s family spokesperson was effectively denying allegations of corruption, money laundering and denial.
Judge Matthew Nicole ruled that the entire article meant that Shahbaz Sharif was guilty of many specific crimes such as money laundering, corruption, commissions and denial. The judge ruled that the allegations were so direct and specific that the average reader of those words would believe that Sharif was to blame for the act, which is why newspapers had to provide evidence that “tens of millions of pounds of public money” and “money laundering in Britain “. “related to Shahbaz Sharif and that he was the main beneficiary of the” complex money laundering system “.
For David Rose, his job is to convince the Daily Mail lawyers that the documents he gave and handed over to officials in Pakistan proved Shahbaz Sharif’s money laundering and corruption.
Regarding the defamation suit, Mail’s lawyers have repeatedly, but three times, stated that they have no evidence of “actual” and “substantial” money laundering by Shahbaz Sharif and Ali Imran Yusaf.