In this lamentable litigation Peter Smith J found that both sides attempted to deceive the court by forging documents. A list of over 50 challenged documents was produced. The trial judge had to hear the evidence of three experts on handwriting issues. He found it impossible to come to a clear conclusion in respect of each document and did not do so. He identified those key documents, agreements and share transfers which he held were not genuine.The question is why both men are not now serving lengthy prison sentences for contempt of court.
The judge also found that both sides also lied in their evidence. In some areas of the case his task of evaluating the true facts about the dispute was difficult, if not impossible. Each of the individual parties, by using reprehensible means, set out to improve his own prospects of success, to damage those of the other side and to defeat the efforts of the court to do justice according to law. They abused, obstructed and attempted to undermine the justice system and the legal processes in which they were participating.
The perjury and forgery by both sides was so extensive that the judge said that he would not accept the evidence of either side, unless supported by independent documents whose authenticity was not challenged and the evidence of witnesses whose veracity was not challenged. He aimed at deciding the case on the basis of uncontaminated evidence.
The proper working of our legal system and of our courts is the most fundamental foundation of our society and nation. Those like Jonathan Aitken who imagine they can escape with lying to the court are quite rightly proven wrong with a lengthy jail sentence.
If Mohammed Zahoor and Sohail Masood hold our standards of truth and justice so lightly, let us also find a way to deprive them of it. If they want to be outlaws, so be it; let each be permanently and irrevocably barred from any civil law recourse or protection in the United Kingdom. The civil law and the civil courts should be closed to them for ever.