Paul Tweed is a lawyer to Hollywood stars, Irish business leaders and even the British royal family.  He is the doyen of defamation for people convinced they have been traduced in the media and when famous foreigners go lawyer shopping to avail of the famously plaintiff-friendly libel laws in Ireland and Britain, many of them call Paul Tweed’s office in Belfast. 

But Tweed has also many loyal clients across the business elite in Ireland and the UK and I’m told it’s a dead giveaway when you see his very fancy car parked outside clients’ homes when he does house calls.

In this interview, I talk to him about his own background, and how he ended up as one of the world’s leading defamation practitioners. But I also talk to him about the legal landscape and the fact that many of his new cases involve social media behemoths.

He also discusses some of his most interesting cases, such as his defence of Barney Eastwood in the libel action taken by the boxer Barry McGuigan. I hope you enjoy it.

*****

Sam Smyth (SS): Paul, tell me, were you approached to represent Johnny Depp in his case against The Sun newspaper in the UK and if he had approached you what would you have advised him to do?

Paul Tweed (PT): Well, it’s very difficult to answer that question because it’s still under appeal. But, no, I wasn’t approached because I had acted for both of them when they were husband and wife about five years ago, so obviously I would have been conflicted out anyway.

SS: Against somebody else, I presume?

PT: Yes, yes. A completely unrelated situation. Given that the case is maybe under appeal, I mean certainly his lawyers have indicated that.

SS: Well, they’ve talked about it, although most media lawyers in Britain say there’s very little chance of that being overturned and so forth.

PT: Absolutely, because don’t forget London is different now from Dublin because you don’t have the jury trial for defamation cases, so normally there can be an argument that there’s a perverse jury award and that is a ground for appeal in certain circumstances. In this case you’ve a very experienced media judge who’s listened to all the evidence and he came down in a fairly dogmatic manner in terms of his decision, so I think an appeal will be – whether they go ahead with it or not – will be interesting. The most interesting scenario of course is what happens in the United States where there will be a jury trial, where Johnny Depp is suing Amber Heard directly because in this case in London it was The Sun he was suing. She was merely a witness. In this case they’re going to be head-to-head if it goes ahead.

SS: Yeah, but there is also the First Amendment in America.

PT: First Amendment and public figure defences, all these factors and more importantly there, I think, her main defence is that she didn’t name him. Now, she may change that approach, obviously as a result.

SS: If he’s identified, though, I mean is that as good as naming him?

PT: Well, that’s what he will be saying and I mean most people, particularly after this case, it’s going to be very hard to argue that perhaps he wasn’t identified but that will be for a US court to decide. He’s claiming 50 million, she’s countersuing for 100 million so it could be an interesting battle that may make Trump-Biden roll into the background.

SS: But now we’re told that Depp’s legal costs were estimated at six million and he is now threatened with losing contracts worth tens of millions perhaps, so would wise counsel not have advised him at the outside to just ignore the wife-beating story in The Sun?

But so far as Prince Andrew is concerned, he was coming over to Portrush and he asked if I’d like to come up to join him for a cup of tea and a chat that morning

PT: It is very difficult to know what the advice was. I mean obviously public perception will be, you know, that he should not have done it and obviously with the result I’m sure he perhaps regrets doing it – perhaps. But don’t forget there are lots of reasons. I mean he may have been put under serious pressure by the studios to take legal action or they may have been withdrawing contracts anyway, so he could have been in a situation where he had nothing to lose, so to speak. He had to bring the case. You just don’t know what sort of scenario the client is in.  Lawyers can only advise clients; clients have to decide whether to take that advice and I’ve been in that situation many times before.

SS: A bit like government ministers.

PT: Exactly, exactly. And we very rarely have a Yes Minister situation with our clients, certainly my clients all know what they want. But most of them over the years – and that’s over 40 years now – they will take my advice and I would not take a case if I felt somebody was doing something that a) was against their interests, b) was going to be wasting the court’s time and also, you know, against the interests of justice and sometimes clients, you know, you have to spend a bit of time explaining to them not just what they can achieve but more importantly what they can lose and the libel courts, as the Oscar Wilde analogy that people have repeated ad nauseam, in my personal view, if any my clients have to enter the witness box in a libel action, I regard that as a personal failure.  I try to get options.  I mean I also act for newspapers, I act for book publishers, broadcasters, so I swap hats, you know, typical lawyer, you know, call us mercenaries – but we’re not.  You know, at the end of the day we’re officers of the court and I will fight for whatever client it is.

Advising royalty, politicians and business titans

SS: Besides Harrison Ford, Reese Wetherspoon, Jennifer Lopez, Louis Walsh, Van Morrison and Liam Neeson, you’ve also represented Michael O’Leary of Ryanair, Paddy McKillen, Gerry Adams, Peter Robinson and recently Arlene Foster. I could go on and on about that. Oh yes, and Prince Andrew. Tell me, you were one of the first people to see Prince Andrew after the scandal broke about his close friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.  Are you representing or advising the prince in that matter?

PT: No, it was in a personal capacity. I acted for his former wife and still act for his former wife, Sarah Ferguson, and I’ve been involved in litigation for her, both in London and in Dublin. But so far as Prince Andrew is concerned, he was coming over to Portrush and he asked if I’d like to come up to join him for a cup of tea and a chat that morning.

The time clock certainly wasn’t running.  But I mean that’s all it was, so I can’t really go any more than that, but I mean I was not advising him as his lawyer in those circumstances.  Obviously I would … I advise my clients very firmly.

SS: In those or in any circumstances?

PT: Sorry?

SS: Or in any circumstances you were talking about.  Not the Jeffrey Epstein circumstance, but have you advised him on other circumstances?

Mine is more what is known as the 3am sweat where I wake up during the night, the perspiration rolling off me trying to work out why did I do that, is that the right decision

PT: I would prefer not to go into any of that. That would be, as I say, solicitor-client confidentiality and that’s a very great defence for us lawyers, so I’m going to jump into that one this time.

SS: Well, listen, I’ll jump out of that and we’ll say professional advisors to the royal family are usually rewarded with a title, would you be comfortable with Sir Paul Tweed?

PT: No, I’ve never sought any sort of title. I act for Loyalists, Republicans, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, as you said earlier DUP, SDLP, Sinn Féin, the lot. I’ve acted for two former Taoiseachs, I’ve acted for, you know, members of the UK Conservative Party and Labour Party. I have to be absolutely seen to be impartial.  It’s all down to perception. Clients have got to be comfortable and, you know, I’m not a political animal, I’m not a religious person and I think that has stood me in good stead. People might be wincing as I say that, but my impartiality and independence is crucial. Not just for me but for my clients.

Smear campaigns, reputation management and turning down clients

SS: Well, that brings us to a point now that I was saying about before I met you and that is when I look at your client list, a lot of them – now, particularly those in the entertainment field – are very often young people, very, very wealthy young people, people, some people say they give a teenager, you know, a few million, it’s like giving a child a machine gun, you know, they can do terrible damage. Tell me, do indecisive clients ask lawyers to make judgement calls for them that are solutions to actual business problems rather than asking their lawyers to make legal choices?

PT: I think certainly in the modern era, quite often, you know, lawyers can be brought in to the commercial element of a client’s advice.  I mean in terms of reputation or brand because we do quite a bit of work for corporates as well, I mean that impacts on the commercial viability or the wealth of an individual, you know, if you lose your reputation, if you lose your brand, you’re in serious trouble.  Misinformation’s been put into the media deliberately by people and the consequence of that is that a bank can shut down your account if they, the banks now look at the media, first thing they do if you’re going to open a new account, they see what your online profile is and there are extensive campaigns where people try to damage reputations to cause them financial and commercial difficulty and secondly sanctions, US Treasury in particular, base their decisions to impose sanctions to some degree – quite a significant degree – on media coverage. So, we’re brought in quite often by very well-known individuals, whether they’re political figures or high net-worth individuals to try to see if we can get the facts out there, the truth out there, and correct what’s out there. I mean, you know, 20 years ago would I have worried what was published in the North Macedonia Times? Wouldn’t even have heard of the North Macedonia Times. But we have situations where a bank would be looking at something that’s in there, that’s been deliberately put in there – and I’m just picking a fictitious paper but I’m trying to illustrate a point.

SS: Going back to the original point I was making there, you’re often asked to make management decisions rather than deal with strictly legal issues. Is that correct? How ethical is that legally?

PT: We have to be very careful as lawyers and particularly since I am subject to regulation in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales and each have got different standards. I mean there’s a much more flexible standard allowed by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority in London than there would be the very strict standards that there are in Dublin. I am first and foremost an officer of the court. Before a lawyer, I’m an officer of the court and that is my litmus test on everything.  You know, I’ve got to act as if I’m acting for the court.

SS: So, justice is your aim in life.

PT: Well, it’s not my aim. It’s my purpose in life. Because like it or not, that’s my career and that’s what I’ve got … my standard.

SS: To secure justice for …

PT: But also to behave in a way that will stand up to scrutiny.

SS: And not just for your clients, I mean justice is a bigger thing than achieving something for some who hires you.

PT: Yeah, absolutely. But that is something, of course, that is a very moralistic type approach to take.  Mine is more what is known as the 3am sweat where I wake up during the night, the perspiration rolling off me trying to work out why did I do that, is that the right decision. And it seems very bad at 3am in the morning, and then you wake up and you’re having your Frosties at 8am and you think what on earth was I fussing about during the night. But that is my litmus test as well, you know, what’s going to wake me up during the night. So, quite often, and maybe it’s an age thing, Sam, that we both might be at … you know, as you get older, you start to become more aware or more conscious of that 3am sweat. 

You have to be prepared to walk away from clients. I mean we would have, perhaps out of every ten enquiries that would come into my offices in Belfast, Dublin or London, whatever, we would probably turn away eight out of ten.  For different reasons. Now, I don’t mean moral reasons or for any inappropriate reasons but we just feel either we can’t handle it, we’ve too much on or it’s not going to fit with what we have the capacity to do.

SS: Or that you may not win them.

PT: Probably that as well.  But not even so much, it might not have any merit. I would sort of look at it in another way, it’s whether the case has got merit. It’s not whether we can win it or not, it’s whether we feel it has merit in it and all those factors come into account, so whenever you see is there an overlap from being a lawyer to being if you like a business manager, that might be a good analogy, the answer is no. Like I would be … I mean my bank manager used to say to me, ‘Paul, whenever you’re investing in shares, could you let me know so that I can warn all the other customers,’ so nobody, I don’t think, would want business advice from me and certainly my wife doesn’t even trust me in making investment decisions.  So, that would not be my forte, I’m afraid.

Why libel tourism does not exist

SS: I accept that a lot of your clients I suppose are younger, they’re very wealthy young stars of entertainment. You’re sort of acting in locus parentis. That is, for those who don’t know, when an individual assumes parental status and responsibilities for another individual, usually a young person without formally adopting that person.  I took that off the internet. Tell me, do you feel like that?  You’re like someone who’s almost a ward of the court and you are operating for them?

PT: Well, if they’re a ward, if they’re under the age of 18, any settlement – and this is now any settlement that I would negotiate for them requires court approval. So, a judge will ultimately decide, if they’re under 18, so that’s not my decision. I don’t have to be a ward of them. The court is a ward. So, under 18 not a problem. And in fact, you know, we have got a couple of situations at the moment, I mean a common scenario is paparazzi photographs, you know, it’s still a big problem where children are photographed when they’re out walking or shopping with their parents.

SS:  The children of people in the public eye.

PT: Of famous people, well-known people and it’s a big, big problem. I’ve had it all the way through my career trying to deal with it. You know, it used to be we tried to do it on the grounds of privacy but that doesn’t really work because the media don’t really have a big concern about that. It’s now data, misusing the child’s data, i.e. the image. And that, that’s in there. But it needs court approval.  We can’t just go ahead and settle the case, even if the parents give the go-ahead.

SS: Well, listen, don’t talk to me about people taking your data but we’ll talk about that some other time.  Sometimes, though, Hollywood stars, do you know, will sue in British or Irish courts taking advantage of our particularly harsh libel laws. I’m assured defamation cases taken by public figures that secure big awards here would not be successful in the USA which is often their homeland. You know, with the 1st Amendment and so on.

PT: Yeah, that’s correct, that’s absolutely correct and … but in the era of the internet where there’s global dissemination, global reputations, if you’ve got a Hollywood A-lister, he’s got as big a reputation and is as well known in Dublin as he is in New York. Now, his brand and his earning capacity is equally vulnerable in Europe as it is in the United States. 

SS: So, if it’s in the Bangor Spectator, it has the same import if it’s in the New York Times, is that what you’re saying?

PT:  Well, that’s not correct. I mean it’s the same import if the New York Times is published in Dublin, I mean it is read quite extensively in Dublin, so the major newspapers, the major publications, obviously they are profiting from their international …

I love Belfast, I love Dublin, you know, I’m sure there’s a lot of back-stabbing going on. But the one good thing being a defamation lawyer, they keep it very quiet if they’re bad-mouthing me behind my back

SS: Yeah, but the Bangor Spectator would be read by few in New York.

PT: Well, the Bangor Spectator is a client of mine, I would be acting for them so that’s a bad example, Sam, but I know the point you’re trying to make is, you know, why not sue in the area where there is the greatest dissemination or where it emanates.

SS: And where you stand to have the biggest loss.

PT: The biggest loss, and the problem is yes, they cannot sue in the States. But of course President Obama, apparently I’m told it was partly because of me, brought in the Speech Act in 2010 which basically discouraged or more or less prevented US citizens from suing US companies or US citizens outside mainland USA. So, effectively that does stop what you would call libel tourism. Libel tourism doesn’t exist, I mean it’s like triffids. I keep saying to somebody would you give me one example of libel tourism. And what quite often they’ll throw back – and I mean you’ve probably got it on the tip of your tongue there – Justin Timberlake.  But Justin Timberlake, we sued Bauer, Heat Magazine, in Dublin because if you go to the checkout in Tesco, you would see that same number of copies of Heat Magazine as you would at a checkout in Tesco in London. And international reputation, and we did it, and it was sorted out amicably.

SS: Yeah, but would it be unreasonable to say that an Irish court would be much more likely to be sympathetic to him if he was your client than a court in the United States if he was to take that action?

PT: It wouldn’t be so much that the court would be more sympathetic but the law would be more favourable in Ireland than it would be in the United States by a long way, absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever.  I mean …

SS: Does it not make it unfair on the Irish media and does it not make your client in that case then, do you know, being very sharp-elbowed and very bossy to people who are much poorer than they are on many occasions?

PT: It depends. You’re talking about the client suing the Irish media. For instance in the Timberlake example, it was Bauer, it was German publication, an EU publication and Ireland I think are staying in the EU as far as I’m aware, so, you know, Dublin you’re just as entitled to sue in Dublin – in fact one of the big problems we have is the opposite of what you said, a lot of these publishers – and by the way I’m very sympathetic with the Irish media, I’m being a total hypocrite, I’m now trying to protect the print media because I read more newspapers than anyone on the planet, so I’m actually turning turkey which is an awful thing to admit, so I’m trying to protect them.

The main problems we’re having at the moment are with Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon who have decided to establish their European operations here.

Building a defamation practice, and the first big case

SS: Do you know, what I was going to do at this time was go back to the beginning and that was your growing up in Bangor, County Down. Now, just I was thinking about it because I come from not very far away from it, isn’t Bangor the administrative capital of County Down’s Gold Coast?

PT: Well I didn’t see gold when I was there …

SS: Pickie Pool.

PT: Yeah, Pickie Pool was definitely … it wasn’t the Côte D’Azur by any means and unless you like Bovril, it was really not the place to be hanging out in many ways because of the cold, the weather always seemed to be absolutely freezing in those days, or certainly the pool water was. No, I grew up in Bangor. My parents were not particularly wealthy at all. In fact I’ve got the dubious honour, I think, of probably one of the biggest overdrafts I had whenever I joined Johnson’s back in 1978 out of Queen’s.

SS: And sorry, what did your dad do?

PT: My dad was a bank manager, but as I say, it all sounds very grand but he wasn’t paid an awful lot but he used to get low-interest mortgages in those days which gave him a wee bit of a head start. But my parents gave myself and my two brothers everything they had. We got the odd trip to Butlin’s in Mosney and that was it. I worked Christmas.  I worked in a local inn at Easter and I worked at Pritchett’s …

SS: Which inn if you don’t mind?

PT: Crawfordsburn Inn. And then I worked in Pritchett’s ice cream factory every summer to earn the money.

SS: Were you at Queen’s University?

PT: Queen’s University, yes.

SS: Yeah, and you continue to live in Belfast. You have your head office there. Now you have outlets in Dublin and in London I think.  Do you know, were you ever tempted to move at all?

PT: I was. I was always tempted, certainly LA, I would love to have gone out there. But the two factors that have to come to the fore, one, the very fact that I could operate in Ireland, in the UK, was a big advantage as I developed a media practice, because I did start off in insurance, a defence insurance operator for many years.

SS: In Johnsons?

PT: In Johnsons. It was a stroke of luck that we had certain cases that brought me into the media work.  So, I was always sort of thinking maybe next year that might be quite good. But I love Ireland. I love Belfast, I love Dublin, you know, I’m sure there’s a lot of back-stabbing going on. But the one good thing being a defamation lawyer, they keep it very quiet if they’re bad-mouthing me behind my back. They make sure that I don’t feel the warm urine going down as they say, as they do it quite quietly because they know there could be consequences. 

And this is why the Johnny Depp case is unique because we’ve all seen the evidence. In the modern era now of the internet, although you’re not in court, you can see it all as it happens

But I love the people and I think this is a great country to live in, if the weather would improve.  Obviously, I wouldn’t mind the California weather. Tomorrow it might still come, you never know, Sam, I might, I might be able to get the winter of my career out in California.  But, you know …

SS: Oh, you could. But I’m just thinking here now and I, believe it or not, I’m old enough to recall that that was your first big defamation case, now, this was an alleged argument over which of two eminent Queen’s Counsel, that’s senior counsel, in Holywood County Down which of them first saw the last chocolate éclair in a bakery in Holywood County Down.

PT: Yes, it’s important to emphasise County Down not Hollywood in California.

SS: And these really were the biggest name lawyers, some of the biggest name lawyers in the North.

This was reported, if I can remember in a sort of jocular way but the Sunday World.  There was a defamation action taken. Now you were acting not for both but for one of the two senior counsel. It ended up with the Sunday World having to pay each of the men £50,000.

PT: Yeah.

SS: Sorry, you were talking earlier on your whole position in life, the whole ideas of lawyers is justice.  Where’s the justice in that?

PT: I’ve been asked this question many times over the years. It’s very easy to demean the case by talking about two senior lawyers, one of the top civil lawyers of his day and one of the top criminal lawyers of his day fighting over the last chocolate éclair in a Holywood cake shop but what you’ve …

SS: I’m sorry, Paul, dare I say, if you and I were sitting having a cup of tea somewhere, a drink somewhere, we would be breaking our backsides laughing at that.

PT: But that’s the very reason that this was an important case: people were laughing at them.  And that was a totally fabricated story.

SS: People are allowed to laugh at other people.

PT: No, they are, yes.  But not if you are a top flight lawyer, you must have credibility, you must have your reputation and you’ve got to do it.

SS: Yeah, but maybe you shouldn’t be fighting with another fancy lawyer about the last éclair in the bakery in Holywood.

PT: But this is where I’m going to get one up on you, Sam.  Because seven working-class people of Belfast decided that they agreed with me. And they agreed with Bob McCartney and Des Boal that they should get 50,000 each. The Sunday World decided not to go ahead at the door with their appeal.  The Court of Appeal, they obviously decided that the Court of Appeal were going to find against it.

SS: Where another lawyer like you has advised them don’t throw good money after bad.

PT: Well, perhaps. But that is what this is all about. My point is those seven people have got a big advantage over the people who were laughing. They heard all the evidence. They heard how it impacted on Bob McCartney and Des Boal and the jury heard the various points and that’s where a lot of these problems start.

And this is why the Johnny Depp case is unique because we’ve all seen the evidence. In the modern era now of the internet, although you’re not in court, you can see it all as it happens. Back in 1986, you didn’t.  All you got was the Belfast Telegraph reporting on it and the Newsletter at the end of each day and they obviously had their perception, but they would put the little bits at the end and people didn’t get the same feeling for the case and the impact on the plaintiffs that the seven working-class members, good people of Belfast, they heard it all and they decided, they decided that it was worth 50,000 each.

Fees, foals and a law for the rich

SS: Now, unlike barristers, solicitors like yourself can decline a potential client.  What is your criteria for agreeing to represent somebody?

PT: First of all, the primary criteria is if they’ve got merit in the case. People think that because somebody says something about you that’s untrue, that they’ve got a libel action. So, you’ve got to explain to them there are a lot of other factors that have to be taken into account. So, the actual various factors and hoops that we would have to put people through if we decided a possible case that is like a filter, if you like, and invariably whenever the cases come through, you’ve also got to remember there’s no legal aid for a defamation case, so people have to be prepared to put their house on the line, because it’s not a question of paying us, as such.  If you lose the case, you’re liable for all the costs.

SS: Of the other side as well.

PT: Yeah, and you made a very fair point as well earlier about the media. The Irish media are struggling at the moment and there’s nobody more conscious of that than me.  But also, people who bring the case, you know, they are putting their house on the line now. This is why I’ve always objected to the fact that the libel courts are for wealthy people. They seem to be, it’s only wealthy people and famous people tend to be wealthy as well or whatever, and that is where the unfairness is. Certainly in Dublin, even though the jury system – and as I say there’s a 12-person jury here of course as opposed to seven in the North –, it has come up with some, in my opinion, excessive, extremely excessive awards and I think we need to look at that.

SS: Well, they’ve dropped the juries in the UK.

PT: Exactly. What I try to do is get vindication for the client as opposed to financial reward.  That’s not the way you approach the case. Now, I say to a client, if you’re in this for the money … once I’m asked, somebody says to me, ‘How much do you think this is worth?’ That would be the first, the red light goes on. Because it is for vindication and that’s why I think the Press Ombudsman here in Dublin is doing a fantastic job, they’re an example to the world, and I think he will confirm that we try to use the Press Ombudsman where possible.

SS: Oh, yeah, and I’ll come back to that in a second.  Now, just thinking when you were speaking there about legal fees which are very stiff now, and I think that point has been made over and over again, for instance, some lawyers think that pro bono means being supportive of U2’s lead singer.  Do you have many poor or working class clients?

PT: Yes, I do. I have a lot of them. I have to be careful what I say here in terms of client confidentiality but I think if you ask around the population, I act pro bono for victims of domestic abuse, rape victims, injured parties. I’ve done that over the years. I also act for journalists who are not wealthy people normally. And I think I act for more journalists, I suspect, than anyone in the UK and Ireland over the years and again that’s a matter of public record I think you’ll find. I also act for politicians and I also act for lawyers.  But we’ll not go there, we’ll … let’s leave the third one out.

SS: You have no foal, no fee, which means you only charge fees if your client wins. Do you do that or is that allowed?

PT: We do, of course we do. Certainly in Dublin, in Ireland here we’re allowed to use no foal, no fee; we’re not allowed to do it in Northern Ireland. In England it’s called a CFA, so it’s basically a conditional fee arrangement but it’s something similar to this but there are various factors you have to take into account, but we do that all the time. Again depending on the case, you know, it’s striking a balance, it’s very difficult in my world, I mean I know people love to say wealthy lawyers, this is a lawyers’ junket, I absolutely can say with hand on my heart, that does not apply to me, and I would be in a very unique position because I can give you lots of people who will come forward and confirm that does not apply to me. 

If somebody were to write a defamatory letter and it was published in a newspaper, that newspaper is liable for the content of that letter.  So, why would Facebook not be responsible for a defamatory posting?

I must act within the regulations of the Law Societies that I’m operating under and that can be a problem.  Because I mean I’ve been complaining particularly before in the North where there is this restriction, we cannot do the no foal, no fee, which I think is absolutely outrageous, particularly where there is no legal aid and, you know, particularly where people are … but I’m not trying to make myself out as some …

SS: And sorry, who enforces that?  I assume it’s the Law Society.

PT: It’s the Law Society.

SS: And what is the thinking behind that?

PT: I’ve absolutely no idea.  Maybe just watch this space.  I mean again people seem to sort of say well it doesn’t really apply to us or it doesn’t really matter or we’re not concerned, but I don’t know why.

SS: I can see that.  Are you thick-skinned about defamation lawyers being called ambulance chasers and so forth?

PT: No, I’ve taken action against a journalist who once … only once have I been called that totally in the wrong and he apologised and he was a very well-known journalist, and he actually said he misworded his statement or whatever.  Like I said, my reputation speaks for itself and I would be more than happy to stand back and make people make enquiries from any clients you want to.

SS: Have you ever sued or threatened to sue somebody for personally defaming you?

PT: For me personally?  Good question.  I can’t recall or anything at the moment.  I don’t know, I can’t recall. I may have, I may have.  I may have done that a couple of times.

SS: Would you have written a letter or gone to court?

PT: No, written a letter.  Written a letter.  Or called them.  I would have lifted the phone which is my preferred modus operandi.

SS: And can you give good hairdryer down the phone?

PT: I think on the day.

SS: Yeah, I was just thinking there while you were saying that, that you have represented many journalists including editors, and you would be acting with them against the publishers most of the times, I think, you know.  But you also represent publishers and newspapers.

PT: Correct, yes, represent … it’s a matter of record, Irish News, journal.ie, Sunday Times.

SS: Bangor Spectator.

PT: Bangor Spectator and various book publishers and whatever, so I mean again, you know, I am a lawyer.  I’m always, I’m still, after all these years, after more than 40 years, it’s a real character flaw of mine, I’m totally flattered if somebody comes to me for advice and, you know, at the end of the day I take the view the client’s putting their trust in me, they’re trusting their reputation, whether it’s a newspaper, fighting, you know, for … in terms of the financial implications that losing would bring and I’ll fight to the death for them.  It doesn’t matter what size and, you know, I do have to swap my hats and I have to do the reverse argument that I’m doing … but that’s … we’re lawyers, that’s what we do.

Fighting newspapers, sparring with McGuigan in court

SS: You mainly for your clients of course, have taken millions literally from publishers. Mainly newspapers that is. But we’re now at a point where newspapers are an endangered species.  Is there not the irony there of getting a big settlement from a publication that you’re killing the goose that lays the golden egg?

PT: I totally agree.  As I say, I’d be feeling a bit of a hypocrite because I’m now starting to, you know, I’ve taken a very, very strong view, I’m trying to protect the traditional media.  As I say, I love the print newspapers, I mean again maybe it’s a generational thing. Over the years, although, you know, if you start to look at the cases I’ve done, I haven’t taken that much from the traditional print media.  95 or in fact 98 per cent of my cases are settled or resolved. I would invite anyone to talk to the legal representatives of whether it’s The Sun newspaper, Mail online or whatever, speak to them and find out what they think of Paul Tweed as a lawyer.  I try to be fair.  I try to negotiate, I’m not cost-driven, I try to get the case, I try to get a quick result for my clients and I’m normally successful in doing that.  Sometimes, you know, I’m dealing with very, very experienced lawyers, much more effective than me and it doesn’t work.  Other times it works.  But I try to get a result for my clients.

You can’t throw the usual hand grenade in here, you know, you’ve done all this damage.  But I do think the print media do need to be protected in particular at the moment. And as I say, whatever takes, I think there should be … I mean … and if you wanted to go onto the Facebook, Twitter scenario, I think they’re the biggest single threat.

SS: Oh we will.  I was just going to say that how often would you suggest to a client who comes to you that their problem might be better solved by speaking with the Press Ombudsman?

PT: I think any case that is feasible, you should go to the Press Ombudsman. I’m a massive fan of them.  I think they’re independent, they’re impartial, but they’re also prepared to make difficult decisions, as they have done for several of my clients, they’ve made the right decision but it’s taken a bit of courage that perhaps may not have been prevalent in other scenarios.

SS: Oh, it does.  I’m just looking at something here now that I wrote because I remember this happening in some very high-profile defamation cases where there was settlements that were considerably larger than what a person would get from an insurance company for being paralysed.  You know, a paraplegic.  I mean someone’s reputation even someone who would consider themselves extremely important and famous, how can that be worth more than somebody’s … someone who’s lost the use of their limbs?

PT: Yeah, I mean I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, but there are scenarios where there might be a financial loss. So, say, for the sake of argument, somebody was about to sign a major film deal with Universal Studios and somebody comes out, you know, something is published on Facebook that’s fabricated, totally fabricated by somebody and they’ve placed it on Facebook and Facebook have failed to take it down, in circumstances like that where maybe that contract might be worth 10 million, I think that’s a different scenario.  What you’re talking about is the actual general damage, the damage to the actual reputation, and I would agree with you.  I wouldn’t disagree with you.

SS: You know, because if you hear something about some star that they’re mean, rude or something like that, so what.  There’s no right, you know, the first amendment in America is a very useful one for freedom of speech but there’s no right for people not to be offended, you know.  People can say rude things to you by and large.

PT: Yeah, and there is a defence of honest opinion, vulgar abuse, you know, those are all things that are not actionable.  But I mean, as I say, for once we’re on the same page, Sam, here.  I’m quite impressed here, I’m agreeing with you here.

Facebook are sucking all the advertising from the traditional media, they’re lifting investigative journalism without paying for it

SS: There’s one now.  Which cases that you have been involved in have you felt have given you the most professional or personal satisfaction?

PT: I think I can say without hesitation it was the B J Eastwood and Barry McGuigan case because everyone thought we were going to lose. Everyone. It was more so than the US election at the moment in terms of Trump’s chances 48 hours ago and, you know, we went into the case, it took massive courage …

SS: This is Barry McGuigan the boxer against …

PT: Barney Eastwood …

SS: … his manager.

PT: … his manager-promoter. And the case lasted five weeks and, as I say, we were on it.  It was myself, Bob McCartney, Ben Stephens were the legal team and Barney Eastwood, absolute courageous plaintiff, I mean he was one of these guys, larger than life … Very wealthy.  Absolutely.  And, you know, to be fair, but the other side were given every opportunity to resolve it and they decided not to. In fact there was triumphalism before as we went in to bat before the jury and then Barney Eastwood in fact had offered a donation to the Royal Victoria Hospital intensive care unit, would have settled the case literally before the off because his eldest son or one of his sons had died quite recently there and he’d been very impressed by their treatment.  But no.  They didn’t do that.  So, you know, you take the consequences.  But, as I say, nothing personal and, you know, like I say, that’s the way we fought.  But five and a half weeks and it was, you know, many, many late nights, you know, working on it, and as I say, we … I had absolute confidence in the case, I’d been out to the States with Barney, we’d interviewed witnesses, physiotherapists, trainers, sparring partners.  We’d toured round, we’d two trips out to the States actually to get it all prepared.  I was confident, you know, that he was telling the truth and he was in the right.  And like again, and again you’ll wince at saying that’s seven ordinary Belfast people, they agreed after five and a half weeks and it was the largest libel award in Northern Ireland legal history, if not Irish legal history.

SS: How much was that again?

PT: It was half a million. 450,000, sorry, my apologies.  Because that was the marker, there was a significance of the jury attached to the case, I’ll not bore everyone with the detail, but that was the figure, a big, big award in 1992.

*****

Varadkar and the leaked memo

SS: Tell me, there was a recent story about the Tánaiste here, Leo Varadkar, where he was accused of leaking a document to a doctor friend.  Mr Varadkar says that much of the coverage is highly defamatory, if he rang you and asked you, would you advise a serving senior politician to sue for defamation or would you suggest they maybe wait for a while?

PT: I wouldn’t generalise.  It would depend very much on the damage that has been caused to him personally and whether it required a quick or an immediate response.  I don’t know exactly what was said about him.  I know obviously the circumstances of the leak, et cetera, but it would depend …

SS: Well, he admitted leaking a document. Claimed that, you know, no one benefited from it.

PT: But there are so many defences to people, you know, in doing that, a politician has to be more than thick skinned, they’ve got to accept that there’s privilege and various other factors that would prevent him being able to take action, even if he wanted to.  But I think I never say never to any situation.  I think each case has to be looked at on its own merits and it is surprising because people form a view beforehand but sometimes they don’t know all the facts.  You need to know everything.  All the facts, the circumstances, the impact on the victim and of course the law. 

*****

Taking a stand on social media platforms and tax tourism

SS: The law.  Now we’re getting down to something we have brushed on a few times.  That’s social media.  Are they responsible citizens, the Apples, Googles and Facebook and those people?

PT:  Absolutely not.  I mean certainly I’ve got … I mean my view is very, very simple.  They’ve claimed, their big defence is that they are just a platform, they’re not a publisher.  But yet, if somebody were to write a defamatory letter and it was published in a newspaper, that newspaper is liable for the content of that letter.  So, why would Facebook not be responsible for a defamatory posting?  They’re facilitating it, they’re doing exactly what the newspapers do.

SS: Well, I suppose what they would say is, ‘Well listen, if you have to do somebody, why don’t you sue the person who wrote the letter,’ rather than them.

PT: You can do that as well, you can do that as well.  But the bottom line is the person who posts it is posting it on Facebook or Twitter to get worldwide global dissemination.  It’s a big difference from somebody even hurling an insult at you across Baggot Street.  This is a different world that we’re living in now.  Facebook are sucking all the advertising from the traditional media, they’re lifting investigative journalism without paying for it from traditional media. 

More than 80 per cent of the 17 to 23-year-old demographic in the United States get their mainstream news from Facebook.  With power comes responsibility.  They are hiding behind at the moment the e-commerce directive saying that that gives them absolute protection.  I totally disagree with that, needless to say.  But that, the e-commerce directive was brought in before we were living in this situation where we’ve got beyond Big Brother 1984, dear god knows what 2024 is going to be like.  The way things are developing, we’re going to be, whether it’s our data has been lifted, whether it’s been our data has been moved from Europe to the United States and again our data commissioner here is doing her best here to try and, you know, put a block to that, we are living in a world that people … and we’re … this is the scenario where the traditional media, in my opinion, are fiddling while their whole livelihood is burning here. 

I’ve no intention of retiring.  I could think of nothing worse.  I don’t play golf, I don’t socialise, I don’t drive a yellow Lamborghini

You know, nobody seems to be taking a stand.  I’ve written to the justice minister and to the various other ministers here who are supposedly responsible for policing, and absolutely no substantive response.  Nobody seems to be interested in taking action.  The same in London.  I can’t get any action there.  It’s, ‘Oh, we’re doing this, we’re doing that,’ I mean originally there was talk of all these sanctions that were going to be imposed in Westminster.

SS: Why?  Are they afraid of the social media companies?

PT: You tell me. 

SS: They’re the wealthiest companies in the world.

PT:  Yeah.  No, Nick Clegg obviously thinks they are, because Nick Clegg warned Dublin that, you know, there are jobs at stake here.  But what about the jobs in the traditional media?  What about the jobs of the journalists who are employed by newspapers?

And he said it wasn’t a threat but he made a point that he said we, Facebook are a major employer in Ireland. So what do you take from that?  Why would you put that into your statement, tell me?

SS: Well, it would suggest that they would withdraw the jobs. Have you requested a meeting with the Minister for Justice?

PT: Yes and no substantive reply.  I’ve got an acknowledgement but no substantive reply but this is going back now weeks and reminders come in and the Minister for Justice has passed it to Mr Ryan. They’re not going to go, they’re not going to go, they’re regulated like they say like everyone else here.

SS: Then they have to do the right thing.

PT: You must be joking, they’ve invested all this money here.  Why would they do that?  I mean this is tax tourism. Tax tourism is much more important than libel tourism, trust me. It’s much more lucrative when we’re talking about money.

SS: Well then you would presumably agree with the French approach then.  Monsieur Macron who’s asking us all to tax the companies the same way

PT: Absolutely, yes.And also the Australians, because the Australians yesterday, or the day before yesterday of course tried to do that.  So, what did Google do?  You know, instead of discussing it and coming to try and agree it, they put all their money into a media campaign to try and counter it.  The same way Facebook did after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, they took a page in all the papers and there you are, boys, that’s you basically bought off.  I mean in many ways, I mean, you know … I’m using very loose language but I mean basically what they’re doing is they’ve got such power, such money.  I mean a $5 billion fine on Facebook, what is that, .01% or something.  I mean I don’t know, but it’s not … there’s no real deterrent unless there’s regulation where there is an effective sanction or incentive for them to do it.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  Facebook and Twitter, I use.  I don’t use Facebook but I use Twitter.  I use Google.  I mean they are a force for good as well.  They do provide a good service to clients.

*****

SS: Listen, your firm of solicitors was originally acquired by a London outfit for 2 million and it’s now called Gateley-Tweed.

PT: Gateley-Tweed, yes.

SS: Now, you’re going to be 65 next year, is that your pension taken care of?

PT: I’m 65 already this year and no it’s not.  I would hate, I dread the thought of not working.  I mean my work is my life as my wife keeps saying.  I do my 16, 17-hour days.  My eldest son didn’t want to be a lawyer because of the long hours I was working.  He’s now in the frontline in the Covid wards in London, working every hour, you know, God gives him.

Medical doctor.  He’s specialising in respiratory and infectious diseases but so tell me about that, but he still thinks he’s got a better deal than me, so I mean I’m standing back.  But no, it’s, it’s not … I’ve no intention of retiring.  I could think of nothing worse.  I don’t play golf, I don’t socialise, I don’t drive a yellow Lamborghini, but, you know …

SS: What do you drive then?

PT: I drive a BMW, so that’s probably … but it’s leased.  It’s not my car, it’s only a leased car.

SS: Ah well, listen, Paul, the clock is calling time on our conversation, so Paul Tweed, thank you very much for your time.  And thank all of you for listening.  So, stay safe and take care.

*****

Investec provides a range of solutions, including specialist FX, Treasury, Corporate Finance and Lending services. To find out more about how Investec can help your business, click here.

Investec Europe Limited trading as Investec Europe is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Investec Private Finance Ireland Limited trading as Investec is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland.