Reply To Govt With Proofs | Maryam Aurangzeb Press Conference | Shahbaz Sharif Defamation Case

[crankthatskunk]

I have posted this video after being saddened from this press conference. To follow the forum rules, I give the thread the name which is described in the Youtube video.
It could have been given many names, after hearing the top notched stupidity displayed by Maryam Aurangzeb.

Only in Pakistan an opposition leader/spoke person can do a PC accusing the serving PM of serious misdeeds , without any consequences for her and her party PMLN.

Why this is so wrong on so many levels!! And why it is embarrassing for Pakistan and its Journalist community, I will explain.

Maryam said that the Court in London has declared it as "Section 1" defamation, which means that there are no proofs against Shahbaz Sharif.

She could not be more wrong.

Section 1 of Defamation Act 2003 states,

Section 1

: Serious harm

Subsection (1) of this section provides that a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. The provision extends to situations where publication is likely to cause serious harm in order to cover situations where the harm has not yet occurred at the time the action for defamation is commenced. Subsection (2) indicates that for the purposes of the section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.

The section 1 only deals with "serious harm" to the reputation of a person or a body. Subsection (1) states that the serious harm could be caused at the time of the publication of defamatory material or some point in the future.

While subsection (2) deals with the harms caused to a body rather than a person and could only be treated under Defamation Laws , if a serious financial loss is caused.

The courts tries to ask the question what is sufficient to establish that a statement is defamatory. The judge has only established this that the article written by Daily Mail against Shahbaz and Imran was defamatory in nature, and had caused serious harm to their reputations.

At present “Sim V Stretch” is identified as authority for existence of a “threshold of seriousness” in what is defamatory.

There is another case Jameel V Dow Jones & Co, which establishes that there needs to be real and substantial tort for defamation case to proceed.

Section 1 raises the bar for bringing cases under the Defamation Act 2003. It requires that only cases which cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation can be brought.

I see huge problems for Shahbaz/Imran and their legal teams.

• Both Shahbaz and Imran are not British Citizens. Daily Mail’s legal team has already identified in the court that because it is “Section 1” defamation case, it would involve lengthy trial and would occurred huge costs. They would demand Financial Securities to be provided to the courts by both Shahbaz and Imran, in case they lose the case and costs are awarded against them. If few millions are deposited by both, it would expose them further, they have to show the sources of the funds. In this context declared income of both could be highlighted.
• Section 2 provides the defence that the allegations are “substantially true”. The defendant doesn’t have to provide justification of each and every word.
• Subsections 2 & 3 (Sec 2) provides defendant to prove that one or more allegations were “Substantially true”. The other allegations or imputations wouldn’t be considered as “serious harm” to the reputations, even if they were not “Substantially True”.
• The most troublesome for Shahbaz and Imran is what is contained in Section 3, “Honest Opinion”. It establishes 3 conditions based on common law “fair comments”.

Subsection 1 to 4, allows defendant to show that 3 conditions are meet.

• That it was statement of “opinion”.
• That the statement can establishes either in general or specific terms the basis of the “opinion”.
• That an honest person would have formed that opinion based on the evidence available.

In other words, Shahbaz / Imran could be in deep troubles, there is so much material available against them, including the fact that it is on the record, Shahbaz in the past had done plea bargain with NAB, paid them off. The money he got it back from them after coming back to the power. Which is also “abuse of power”, likely to go against him.

NAB has sworn statement of one of the accomplices of Imran, which stated that he had collected the amount for Imran, which were transferred/deposited in to Imran’s account.

The worst aspect is the fact that the first question asked by a Pakistani journalist, he stated that “ye jo defamation hoi hai aur London court ka faisla agia hai”.

Inalillah wa ina alhe rajoun. What is the level of Pakistani journalism is apparent from this question. No wonder that a person of a very low IQ can successfully hold PC in Pakistan, spreading lies and attacking a serving PM of Pakistan. These people shouldn’t exist in Pakistani journalism and politics.