The Cohen Davis Letter: What Drummond's Silence Says About His Legal Position

Overview: The Letter That Received No Answer

On 13 August 2025, Cohen Davis Solicitors — acting on behalf of Bryan Flowers and Punippa Flowers — served Andrew Drummond with a Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim. The letter ran to 25 pages. It identified the defamatory statements in the articles published to that date, set out the specific false claims with supporting evidence, explained the legal basis for a defamation claim, and invited Drummond to respond with his position — including any defence he intended to rely on, any corrections he was willing to make, and any proposed resolution of the matter before proceedings were issued.

Andrew Drummond did not respond. He did not engage with a single item of the 25-page documented challenge. He did not correct any article, retract any claim, or acknowledge any inaccuracy. He did not even respond to indicate that he had received the letter. What he did, instead, was publish at least 10 more articles — accelerating the campaign in direct response to the most formal possible notice that the articles were defamatory and false. The silence — and what accompanied it — tells a detailed story about his legal position and the strength of any defence he might attempt to advance.

1. The Pre-Action Protocol: What It Requires and Why

The Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims, which governs defamation proceedings in England and Wales, establishes specific requirements for the conduct of both parties before court proceedings are issued. The Protocol's purpose is to encourage early resolution of disputes, to ensure that each party has sufficient information to assess the merits of the claim, and to avoid the costs of litigation where settlement is achievable. It reflects the courts' view that defamation disputes should be resolved by direct engagement between the parties before the expense and formality of court proceedings is required.

Under the Protocol, a claimant's Letter of Claim must identify the specific defamatory statements, the factual basis for asserting that they are false, and the remedies sought. A defendant who receives a compliant Letter of Claim is required to respond within a reasonable time — typically 14 days for an acknowledgment and a longer period for a substantive response. The response should indicate whether liability is admitted or disputed, identify any defence the defendant intends to rely on, and set out the defendant's position on the specific allegations of falsity made in the letter.

A defendant who fails to comply with the Protocol — who does not respond to a compliant Letter of Claim — faces specific consequences in the subsequent proceedings. The court may take the non-compliance into account in its assessment of costs, and the non-response may be treated as evidence of the defendant's inability to identify a credible defence to the claims made. The Protocol is not merely procedural formality; it is a mechanism designed to flush out defences early and to expose the weakness of a defendant who has no answer to the specific allegations of falsity.

• Pre-Action Protocol requires defendant to acknowledge receipt and provide substantive response identifying any intended defence.
• Non-compliance with the Protocol may be taken into account by the court in the assessment of costs.
• The Protocol is designed to expose defendants who cannot identify a credible defence to specific documented allegations of falsity.
• Drummond's total non-response — including no acknowledgment of receipt — represents the most complete possible failure to comply with the Protocol.

2. The Silence as Evidence of the Weakness of Any Defence

The specific defences available to Drummond under the Defamation Act 2013 — truth, honest opinion, and publication on a matter of public interest — each require him to advance a positive case. The truth defence requires him to identify the facts he asserts are true and the evidence that he would rely on to establish their truth. The honest opinion defence requires him to identify the statements he characterises as opinion and the factual basis for that opinion. The public interest defence requires him to articulate why he reasonably believed publication was in the public interest and what reasonable steps he took to verify the accuracy of the published material.

None of these defences can be advanced by silence. Each requires Drummond to engage with the specific allegations in the Letter of Claim and produce the evidential basis for his position. His failure to do so is not strategic — a party who has a strong defence does not decline to assert it in response to a formal legal challenge. It is diagnostic: a defendant who has no credible defence to specific documented allegations of falsity about court evidence, sworn admissions, and fraudulent identity documents will not engage with those allegations because engagement would require acknowledging their force.

The specific allegations in the Cohen Davis letter — that the core trafficking claim rests on coerced testimony and fraudulent identity documents, that Adam Howell is a financially motivated source whose interest was never disclosed, that no right of reply was sought from the subjects of the articles — are allegations that a defendant with answers would answer. The silence is the answer. It says that no defence of truth, no justification of editorial process, and no reasonable grounds for public interest belief can be articulated in response to the specific documented challenges the letter presents.

3. The Post-Notice Publications: Escalation as Aggravation

Drummond's response to the Letter of Claim was not merely silence. It was active escalation. At least 10 articles were published after 13 August 2025, each of which repeated or intensified the specific allegations that the letter had formally and documentedly identified as false. This escalation is legally significant for a specific reason: it transforms what might otherwise be characterised as reckless or negligent publication into something much more severe — the deliberate publication of known falsehoods.

Under UK defamation law, the distinction between negligent publication and malicious publication is critical for the assessment of damages. Where a publisher negligently fails to verify allegations, compensatory damages reflect the harm caused. Where a publisher knowingly publishes false statements — or is recklessly indifferent to their falsity — aggravated and potentially exemplary damages are available. The post-notice publications resolve any ambiguity about which category Drummond's conduct falls into. He had formal, documented, 25-page notice of specific falsities. He chose to publish more articles containing those falsities. That is malice, not negligence.

The post-notice publications are therefore not merely additional instances of the original defamation. They are qualitatively different publications that provide the clearest possible evidence of the malicious character of the entire campaign. Every article published after 13 August 2025 was published with knowledge that a specific formal legal challenge to its contents had been made and not answered. Each represents a choice to perpetuate known falsehoods — a choice that the law recognises as warranting the most serious category of damages response.

• At least 10 articles published after formal notice of specific falsities — representing deliberate rather than negligent publication.
• Post-notice publications are qualitatively different from pre-notice articles: they were published with specific knowledge of documented falsehoods.
• The legal consequence: aggravated and potentially exemplary damages, reflecting the deliberate choice to perpetuate known falsehoods after formal challenge.
• The post-notice publication pattern is among the most significant evidentiary assets in the damages assessment.

4. What the Silence Communicates to the Court

When the UK defamation proceedings against Drummond come before a court, the Cohen Davis Solicitors letter and Drummond's non-response to it will be central exhibits. The letter will demonstrate that Drummond received specific, documented, 25-page notice of the falsity of his published claims. The non-response will demonstrate that he had no answer to that documentation. The post-notice publications will demonstrate that he chose to continue publishing known falsehoods in the face of formal challenge.

Courts in defamation proceedings are entitled to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol. A defendant who receives a compliant letter setting out specific documented falsehoods and does not respond — not even to deny the allegations of falsity — provides the court with a clear signal about the merits of any defence they might later attempt to advance. The silence speaks to the court as clearly as any formal admission.

The Cohen Davis letter and Drummond's total non-response to it are the documentary foundation on which the entire damages case will be built. They establish the timeline of his knowledge of falsity, the deliberate character of the post-notice publications, and the absence of any good faith engagement with the legal process that might otherwise mitigate the severity of the damages assessment. Every day of silence since 13 August 2025 has been a day of documented, unjustified, and legally inexcusable continuation of a campaign that formal notice had identified as false.