A book written by an expert on the Middle East was defamatory of libel lawyer Paul Tweed, the High Court in Belfast has ruled.
A judge held that Dr Andreas Krieg’s publication contained a meaning that the Belfast-based lawyer allegedly acted unprofessionally by sending cease and desist letters in an effort to intimidate critics of the United Arab Emirates.
Mr Justice Colton also reached a similar finding over the contents of a tweet by the academic.
“I have concluded that the words complained of do have a defamatory meaning,” he confirmed.
RM Block
Based on the ruling, a further hearing is now expected to determine whether or not Dr Krieg is liable in the libel action. He can still mount a number of potential defences to the claim against him.
Mr Tweed is seeking damages over an alleged reference to him in the publication ‘Subversion: The Strategic Weaponization of Narratives’.
Dr Krieg is an associate professor at the School of Security Studies in King’s College, London and political risk analyst on the Gulf region.
Published in 2023, his book has been described as an examination of how “malicious state and nonstate actors take advantage of the information space to sow political chaos”.
Mr Tweed, known for successfully representing celebrity clients such as Britney Spears, Liam Neeson, Nicolas Cage and Jennifer Lopez, alleged that the academic has damaged his reputation.
The case centred on a passage in the book written for postgraduates and practitioners in the area of information studies.
During a preliminary hearing to determine the meaning of the content, the high-profile solicitor’s legal team argued that he was subjected to a “gratuitous” defamation attack.
They claimed he had been wrongly depicted as a covert agent of the UAE deployed to intimidate and silence its critics.
Mr Tweed also sued over a posting on X, contending it contained meanings which ranged from him being an unethical solicitor to being a UAE agent.
Counsel for Dr Krieg insisted there was nothing defamatory in the portrayal of a legitimate lawyer-client relationship. He described the book as an academic text about how liberal democracies are vulnerable to completely lawful acts of subversion.
Any reference to helping Abu Dhabi silence critical voices in the West had nothing to do with Mr Tweed, it was contended.
But Mr Colton held that the disputed passage went against a basic UN principle that lawyers should not be identified with their clients’ causes in discharging their professional functions.
The court heard how Mr Tweed has carried out work for the risk assessment firm Cornerstone Global Associates.
It was alleged that he had sent aggressive cease and desist letters to academic publishers, universities and social media companies to target individuals critical of the UAE and its regional policy.
According to the judge, references in the passage were clearly critical of the solicitor.
He rejected claims that the words meant Mr Tweed was a subversive covert agent of the UAE involved in any improper conduct to protect the interests of a political regime.
Instead, the “sting” related to alleged unprofessional behaviour.
Mr Justice Colton ruled: “The single correct meaning of the words complained of in the book is that the plaintiff acted unprofessionally in working with Cornerstone Global Associates and others in sending aggressive cease and desist letters to academic publishers, universities and social media companies in an effort to target and intimidate individuals critical of UAE and its regional policy.”
A similar finding was made over the interpretation of the tweet which related to Mr Tweed.
The judge held that it meant: “The plaintiff acted unprofessionally in suggesting an aggressive strategy to a UAE secret agent and in fighting against Facebook and Twitter to obtain the removal of content on behalf of his client.”
In a statement issued outside court the solicitor’s legal representatives, WP Tweed & Co, said: “Our client is very satisfied with the comprehensive decision in his favour today and looks forward to securing a full remedy for the harm to his reputation caused by these highly defamatory publications.”
