Category: Courts and Politics

Before we start, the “lettuce before action” (for “letter before action”) line has been taken from the estimable Paul Magrath, whose weekly legal email is a must-read.

I really wish I had thought of the line for last week’s post.

*

The post last week provided a quick close reading of the gloriously bad libel letter sent on behalf of the former Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss to the current Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

That post was done at speed: I wanted to respond to what the letter actually said, before I was aware of what others said it said. This is always the best way of engaging any formal document: work out what you can from reading the text yourself, before seeing what others tell you the text says.

This approach has its advantages – and also its disadvantages, not least that one can miss things others will see.

There was also the problem I did not then have access to the second page – though it was fun to speculate what could be on that second page.

This is now a more considered post, adding to the points made in the first post (which I think stands quite well), with the bonus of what seems to be the second page.

And for the reasons set out below, there is a worrying implication in the letter in respect of free expression. This is perhaps odd coming from a politician who often emphasises her free speech credentials.

*

First, here is the full letter with what appears to be the second page (which has been taken with thanks from here):

 

 

*

The second page, which I speculated must have contained all what was missing from the other pages, in fact adds nothing substantial to the letter.

Here it is again:

But, for completeness, the second page tells us that the words complained of were not said in parliament and so there is no issue of the absolute privilege for what is said in parliament (paragraph [7] and the footnotes to paragraph [4]).

And Paragraph [9] somehow manages to weaken what is already a very weak letter.

We already knew that this was a “cease-and-desist” letter that somehow did not set out what would happen if the recipient did not cease and desist. Paragraph [9] now sets out the sender is not even demanding a legal remedy at all.

In litigation terms, paragraph [9] should have instead been in an accompanying “without prejudice” proposing an offer for a compromised outcome. But for some reason it was included in, and thereby undermines, the “open” letter that would be placed before the court when the matter came to trial. It is a strange inclusion in such a letter.

*

As set out last week, this libel threat is poor.

It is perhaps the weakest libel threat ever sent by an English law firm.

That said, it is in my view just about within the scope that a law firm could properly send, given very precise instructions.

But those very precise instruction would have to be to the effect of “send the weakest litigation letter you can”.

And so for that reason, I am not making a point of mentioning the law firm.

We should not visit the sins of a client upon a lawyer, and Truss – like you and me – is entitled to legal representation.

*

Now are some further, more considered observations on the letter.

Notice the bulk of the letter is concerned with the appended expert’s report, including – impressively – a paragraph [16] with seven(!) sub-paragraphs.

This bulk makes the letter rather lop-sided.

The “legal” bits of the letter are nowhere near as detailed as the “economic” bits.

The impression this gives is that the origin of the letter was probably this report, which was then given to lawyers with the instruction of somehow building a legal letter on top of it.

The letter was thereby likely to be a device for promoting the content of the report, which it certainly did.

*

And this then probably explains the existence of this letter.

As was set out last week, it is an utter failure as a libel threat.

Although – with a squint – one can see that it just about meets the requirements of a legal letter, it is plain that was not its purpose.

(And perhaps one error last week was for this blog to treat it earnestly, on its own terms, as a legal letter.)

It is not a serious legal document, but a political and media document.

And contrary to the “Private and Confidential” marking on its front page, it would appear that the intention of the client (if not of the law firm, who would have no control of the matter) was for it to be leaked and published.

That this is the case is further evidenced by the circulated version being unsigned.

For while some legal letters are not signed, and there is no strict requirement for an “ink” signature as such, it is also often the case that the client copies of correspondence are also not signed, just the letter which is actually sent.

It would seem that the letter must have been leaked either by the client or someone in her circle.

*

As regards the expert report, a number of commenters have focused on the identity of the expert.

But it does not matter if the economist’s report on which the letter was relying was by John Maynard Keynes or Adam Smith.

It made no sense to rely on an expert’s report in respect of facts which the same letter also said were “clear”.

That is not what expert reports are for in civil litigation.

*

And now we come to the possible implication of the letter for free expression.

Reading the letter as a whole, including the now non-missing page two, the threat made against the Prime Minister could be made by her against any person at all who said the words complained of.

There is nothing in the letter which would limit the alleged liability to the Prime Minister for saying those words.

Generally libel is blind to the identity and motives of the person who “publishes” the words – in this case says words reported in the media.

The framing of the letter is such that any person who published the words complained of would be liable to Truss for general damages.

The letter is addressed to Starmer, but it describes a claim Truss could also make against world.

Fortunately this letter is so hopeless that nobody will end up with legal liability.

But the premise of the letter is an extraordinary widening of legal liability for political speech, catching many political speech-acts on social media and other published media which most be people would assume was part of their everyday free speech in criticising Truss for what she did with the economy.

Given that the sender often promotes her belief in free speech, this is perhaps further evidence that the content of this letter was not really thought-through by Truss, beyond being the means of widely circulating a certain favourable (but probably legally inadmissible) report.

*

The Prime Minister gave what must be the most appropriate response to this letter in PMQs on Wednesday.

“I got a letter this week from a Tory voter in a Labour seat.

“I hope that they do not mind me saying who it was—it was Liz Truss.

“It was not written in green ink, but it might as well have been.

“She was complaining that saying she had crashed the economy was damaging her reputation.

“It was actually crashing the economy that damaged her reputation.”

*

There has been no announcement of any formal reply by Starmer to the letter, which is not surprising given the letter did not ask for a reply, still less (remarkably for a supposed cease-and-desist letter) demand any undertakings, and the letter also did not include any deadline.

Truss, however, seems to want to have the last word.

On X (previously Twitter) she responded to the Prime Minister’s jibe:

*

Here, if Truss sincerely thinks accusing someone of crashing the economy is defamatory (subject to any defences), then she is with her “closer to home” comments herself defaming someone else in turn.

But at least she put “cease and desist” letter in ironic quotes.

*

Politicians and others (and their lawyers) should always be careful in using any litigation documents – from letters before action to third party submissions – for the purposes of publicity.

Judges certainly do not like it.

And if done badly, you also end up looking very silly.

*

At Substack, last week’s post on Truss has now overtaken the post on Taylor Swift to become the second most popular post ever published on that blog.

And this is fitting in a way.

For an alternative title for this post could have been: “Litigation (Liz Truss’s Version)”.