Jim Curran v Jim Perrin (part 3 of 6)

At last, after years of ignoring Jim Perrin and refusing to rise to the insults and irritations emanating from that quarter, Jim Curran, albeit reluctantly, had sought legal advice.  A course of action was decided upon and a barrister retained: a date was fixed for the court.

The author Jim Perrin, by his overweening arrogance and deeply-rooted malice (for as such it may surely be described) was the sole cause of this dispute, yet fortuitously he was upheld by his cronies; the publishers who had printed his libel. They, at first making light of any suggestion of culpability, tried to imply that the remarks which their man had so offensively made were intended as jest, and they offered ridiculously small amounts to Jim Curran, with no apology, thinking he could easily be ‘bought off’. They had, of course, closed ranks around their favoured one and were practising their brinkmanship.

*       *       *       *       *

Jim’s lawyer had warned him that while they would be suing Jim Perrin (and the publishers) regarding the two sentences which he and his team considered libellous, the opposition would use anything, in their own defence, to cast doubt on his client’s integrity. Uneasily, Jim was only too aware that in 1987 Jim Perrin had ‘on the record’ indeed ‘questioned his integrity’ in a trumped-up and particularly disgraceful episode. It concerned his judgement of a book entered for the Boardman-Tasker Award in the previous year — a devious accusation of trying to influence the judges — and following this wicked defamation, showing an integrity which we believe in Jim Perrin is entirely lacking, Jim Curran had offered his resignation as a member of the judging panel with immediate effect.

It is to the eternal credit of his two fellow judges and to the Committee of the Boardman-Tasker Award (which included the widow of Peter Boardman) that they refused his offer to resign, believed in him, and unquestioningly supported him.

*       *       *       *       *

Years later then, in 1992, when this court case was pending, it was surprising to find the following stratagem employed: the defendants produced a copy of a letter given them by Jim Perrin, which originally he had written to Sir Chris Bonington back in 1987 and in which not only had he queried Jim Curran’s integrity but (far and away worse) in which he had accused him of influencing his co-judges in 1986.

The accusation was wicked and a complete fabrication — and as we explained above — the judges had, out of hand, utterly rejected it …

That entire episode does however speak volumes as to how Jim Perrin has comported himself over the years, and it demonstrates how ‘well in’ he was with the publishing hierarchy who had printed his libel: they chose to believe him, with his flimsy false ‘evidence’, and to continue in their endorsement of his questionable magazine article — going so far as to instruct solicitors.

*       *       *       *       *

So: Jim Perrin wrote in 1987 a deliberately and potentially damaging — not to say damning — letter to Sir Chris Bonington (with copies to Dorothy Boardman and Charlie Clarke) falsely accusing Jim Curran of lack of integrity and of the intention to influence the judges adversely.  Jim Perrin’s words bore no relation to the truth and the letter essentially was malicious in intent and in execution. The recipients disregarded it, easily recognising it for the obvious and distasteful attempt it had been on Jim Perrin’s part to influence them!

Then: infamously, moving forward to 1992, this same despicable letter (could one even believe Jim Perrin’s dishonesty?) was, it was suggested, going to be produced in court as evidence for the defence.

More particularly, it seems to us, for them to state that this was their intention could be seen as a veiled attempt to threaten Jim Curran. Although the letter had proved ineffective when originally Jim Perrin had penned it, perhaps he thought that the passage of time rendered it more harmful; and to be fair there must have been the possibility — as it had been written so many years before — that his publishers were not fully aware of the letter’s history or that it was a letter which, the first time round, had been given no credence and had failed of its purpose. Had they known all the circumstances surrounding its origins surely it seems certain their lawyers would not have pressed ahead?

Oh, the devious subtlety!  A). To write a letter accusing someone falsely;  B). To keep a copy;  and C). To produce it again, some five years later, as if it did have the veracity of good evidence and had originally been believed — Jim Perrin’s effrontery is phenomenal. It is our view that he operates well outside the normal, decent mores of society

For the publishers to have been prepared to show that letter as evidence — the letter of which Jim Perrin had so carefully kept a copy and given to them (ah, how convenient, for him to have kept it safely all those years… ) and to indicate that they would be showing it in court — this while Jim Curran’s lawyer was trying to reach a fair settlement with them (their offers so far having been paltry and still with no hint of an apology) — was, in our opinion, pressure very much like an attempt to blackmail him into acquiescence. It is clear at that stage they thought their case unassailable and presumed their threat to use Jim Perrin’s letter against him would encourage him to withdraw; to close the matter down.

Nowhere in his book has Jim Curran suggested this himself — it is our own completely independent interpretation: nevertheless, given the blatant dishonesty of  Jim Perrin’s tactics, we feel that attempted blackmail when these facts are considered was a strong possibility. (And we know, and can prove, that he is capable of using underhand methods to achieve his aims — viz. the anonymous letter he wrote to our sister’s landlord. Ref. ‘The anonymous letter’.) What is certain is that Jim Perrin had felt sufficiently confident of the power of his old letter, in which he accused Jim Curran; and of his ‘power’ to influence his publishers, that he made it available to them and to their legal advisors: they were then convinced that not only did they hold a winning hand but, with his deceitful accusatory letter, a trump card.

Jac’s sisters.