18th January 2025
The final piece of evidence which shows, on balance, that it was not intended as a serious legal letter
So far this blog (here and here) has provided an immediate close reading of the libel letter sent by the former Prime Minister to the current Prime Minister, and yesterday it set out a more considered approach.
But there is one further thing which perhaps should be noted about the letter.
Let us look again at the first and final pages (which for reasons given in the previous points, I have taken out the letterhead of the law firm, though there is a reference to it on the the final page, which was unavoidable if I were to show the letter did not have a “wet ink” signature).
*
There is something else missing, apart from the “wet ink” signature.
It is something which would normally be at the top of the first page, or maybe sometimes at the bottom of the last page.
The letter circulated to the media does not include any of the usual “furniture” of a legal letter: a reference number, the identity of the lawyer sending it, the email address for the recipient to respond to, and so on.
As this was a letter which explicitly was sent by email, then an email address for a response would be normal.
And given the law firm sending the letter lists three postal addresses for three offices, there would be a need at least for a file reference number or other identifying paraphernalia.
But there is nothing.
*
Taken together with the evidence already detailed in the previous posts that this is a weak litigation letter, then this suggests one of the following scenarios:
1. the version of the letter sent did not have a “wet ink” signature, no reference number and no identifying information as to the lawyer and office which sent it;
2. the version circulated to the press was an unsigned “client copy” of the version of the letter sent, and the letter which was sent did have a reference number and identifying information as to the lawyer and office, and either Truss or someone in her circle leaked their “client copy” version of the letter;
3. the version sent and circulated to the press was not “leaked”, but was instead deliberately crafted and intended as a publicity version for release to the media, and so care was taken that this publicity version removed any identifying details.
Normally(!) the first option would the least likely, because it would odd indeed for a multi-office law firm (as opposed, say, to a High Street one-person firm) to have no identifying information whatsoever on a litigation letter for any reply to be directed to the right person.
Yet if it is the third option, then this would mean that the letter was never intended by Truss to be taken seriously by the recipient: it was always and entirely a media-political exercise.
*
On balance, taking together both the muddled content (and lack of content) of the letter and the accumulation of telling details, this letter was never intended to be a credible litigation letter, it was always an exercise in publicity.
Your response to this may be (and perhaps should be) “duh, no surprise there, Sherlock” – but it is one thing to assert that a letter has no credible legal purpose, and another to demonstrate it could have no credible legal purpose, and to demonstrate on balance that it could have no credible legal purpose is what this short series of posts set out to do.
And, if so, it is an unwelcome development that lawyers’ letters are being. used for such a media-political purpose.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Some of you are submitting comments about the solicitors who sent the letter.
For the reasons set out in this trilogy of posts, those comments will not be published.
From all your analysis, and some further digging, I’d suggest:
1. This letter is part of a disinformation campaign. Disinformation is not expected to convince others of a cause, but more to sow doubt among moderate thinking people about opposition to the cause.
2. Liz Truss is possibly not the main actor organising and paying for this campaign, but is simply willing to be involved.
3. Those with greatest interest in a disinformation campaign like this are the far-right libertarian think tanks and campaigners in the US, who are now hoping to bounce Trump into a similar style of financial policy. That need also speaks to the timing question that you raised. Why now? Because US fiscal policy is about to be decided.
4. Liz Truss has shown her close alignment, and involvement, with these groups (through her social media posts apart from anything else).
5. This letter, and the ‘report’ it publicises, are therefore intended to be useful in countering opposition to the intended libertarian policies along the lines of “but look what happened to the UK when they did it”. This can then be referred to, to sow doubt among wavering opposition, eg more moderate Republican members of the House and Senate, as well as the press.
5. So this is not really intended for a UK audience at all, let alone to lead to any actual litigation in UK courts. It’s just intended to be useful in the US, both directly by showing the letter, but also by showing the press coverage in certain friendly outlets.
In my view the unusual nature of this does mean some discussion around the law firm used, and their prior activities, is valuable in terms of exploring these points, where I accept it usually would not — but I know you don’t want to go there so won’t.
In the good old days, when senior politicians of all parties could realistically be termed ‘statesmen, or stateswomen’, one of them would have had a quiet word with Ms Truss.
They might have advised her to show some humility, some self-knowledge, and in blunter terms to shut up and spend some time at a retreat.
After her spectacular defenestration some shred of humility would be appropriate.
A cogent analysis, which leaves an unanswered question. What benefit could possibly result? True, it did succeed in generating many column inches, but the only significant effect of these was (to quote the multi-attributed witticism) to “remove all doubt” concerning both Truss’s intellectual kinship with a salad vegetable, and her self awareness.