Speaker 1: You can listen to the Front on your smart sneaker
Speaker 1: every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play
Speaker 1: the news from the Australian. From the Australian, here's what's
Speaker 1: on the front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, July thirty one.
Speaker 1: Drama in the bush as regional airline REX fights to
Speaker 1: stay in the air.
Speaker 2: REX is in a.
Speaker 1: Trading halt amid fears it's on the brink of collapse,
Speaker 1: but it's the only carrier on dozens of routes to
Speaker 1: remote locations. Inflation numbers come out today and it's not
Speaker 1: going to be pretty. Analysts they're expecting a jump in
Speaker 1: price growth to three point eight percent in the year
Speaker 1: to June, raising fears of yet another interest rate rise
Speaker 1: next week. You can be the first to know when
Speaker 1: the figures come out at the Australian dot com. Dorau
Speaker 1: John Perros was acquitted of murdering his ex girlfriend Shandy Blackburn.
Speaker 1: Then a coroner said he did in fact kill Shandy. Now,
Speaker 1: a defamation case by Paris against The Australian poses the
Speaker 1: question is it okay for journalists to question the finding
Speaker 1: of a jury? Today, Day two of Paris's bold bid
Speaker 1: to show his reputation was seriously harmed by the Australians
Speaker 1: podcast Shandy Story. John Perros has always denied wrongdoing. It's
Speaker 1: one of the most harrowing cases in Australian history.
Speaker 3: I just yelled out as anyone got a torch, then
Speaker 3: goo's got my baby.
Speaker 4: The verdict in Missus Chamberlain's case guilty for mister Chamberlain guilty.
Speaker 5: Missus Chamberlain was then sentenced to life in Chris.
Speaker 3: Today it has ended with the fourth Coronial inquest finding
Speaker 3: that Azaria Chamberlain was killed by dingo, as her parents
Speaker 3: had claimed from the beginning.
Speaker 1: The story of Lindy Chamberlain and her husband Michael, whose
Speaker 1: nine week old baby Azaria died at Ularu in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty It's one of our greatest miscarriages of justice. A
Speaker 1: family's life ruined by a wrongful conviction. A jury found
Speaker 1: them guilty. Three decades later a coroner, examining fresh evidence,
Speaker 1: said they were not guilty. This is Coroner Elizabeth Morris
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve.
Speaker 6: Please accept my sincere sympathy on the death of your
Speaker 6: special and loved daughter, insists her Azaria. I'm so sorry
Speaker 6: for your loss time does not remove the pain and
Speaker 6: sadness of the death of a child.
Speaker 1: The case of Azaria Chamberlain was invoked in the Queensland
Speaker 1: Supreme Caught on Wednesday by Justice Peter Applegarth. He's hearing
Speaker 1: another case where a jury's decision went the opposite way
Speaker 1: to a coroner.
Speaker 2: The coroner found the dingo did it? A Darwin jury
Speaker 2: finds Lyndy Chamberlain did it. The coroner was right.
Speaker 1: This is the matter of John Perros. He was acquitted
Speaker 1: by a jury in twenty nineteen of murdering his ex
Speaker 1: girlfriend Shandy Blackburn, but he was found by a coroner
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty to be the murderer. We're using a
Speaker 1: voice actor to bring you the judge's words as spoken
Speaker 1: in court.
Speaker 2: So don't we have something similar here that the jury acquitted.
Speaker 2: The tone of episode thirteen is doing their duty. They
Speaker 2: should have acquitted on the evidence that was before them,
Speaker 2: but the coroner made these findings on additional evidence.
Speaker 1: The judge was questioning David Helvajian, a barrister representing John
Speaker 1: Perros in his defamation case. Sparked by the Australians Blockbuster
Speaker 1: investigative podcast Shandy's story. Peros has always denied killing Shandy,
Speaker 1: just as Applegarth is asking this. Just like in the
Speaker 1: Chamberlain case, the jury in John Perros's case did not
Speaker 1: have the same evidence that the coroner was later able
Speaker 1: to consider. The podcast pointed this out and even quoted
Speaker 1: Shandy's mother saying if she was on the jury, she
Speaker 1: would probably have acquitted Perros because the evidence just wasn't there.
Speaker 1: So the judge wants to know. Isn't the podcast allowed
Speaker 1: to point this out? Here's what David Helvajian, representing John Perros,
Speaker 1: told the court.
Speaker 5: My submission still stands that Episode thirteen causes serious harm
Speaker 5: because of the removal of any doubt. It imputes murderer
Speaker 5: and tells a listener why they can be sure of murderer.
Speaker 1: This case is a big deal, not just for us
Speaker 1: at The Australian, but for journalism more generally. If a
Speaker 1: jury makes one finding and a coroner makes another, how
Speaker 1: are journalists supposed to report? Shandy Blackburn was left to
Speaker 1: die in a gutter in the North Queensland tropical city
Speaker 1: of Mackay in February twenty thirteen. She'd been stabbed more
Speaker 1: than twenty times as she walked home from work. Her
Speaker 1: ex boyfriend, John Perros was charged and acquitted of the murder,
Speaker 1: but a coroner who compelled Perros to give evidence found
Speaker 1: he did stab Shandy to death. That would have been
Speaker 1: the end of it, because once acquitted, Peros could not
Speaker 1: be tried again without fresh evidence, until investigative journalist Headley
Speaker 1: Thomas came along with his twenty twenty one podcast for
Speaker 1: the Australian Shandy's Story. This is a moment from episode
Speaker 1: one of shandy Story.
Speaker 7: Shandy and John were sometimes in passionate all consuming love,
Speaker 7: ended up times in deep self doubting despair at their exhausting,
Speaker 7: abusive rows. The jealousies were toxic. John had made no
Speaker 7: secret of what he called his serious trust issues.
Speaker 1: In that first episode, Headley explored doubts over who really
Speaker 1: killed Shandy.
Speaker 7: I've interviewed Mackay, friends of John Perros, and talked to
Speaker 7: others at length off the record. They described John as
Speaker 7: gentle and caring, a tough fighter in the boxing ring,
Speaker 7: but a good natured soul and loyal to a fault.
Speaker 7: A bit intense in relationships, yes, but surely not a murderer.
Speaker 1: Perros is not complaining about the first twelve episodes of
Speaker 1: this podcast. He says episode thirteen defamed him by suggesting
Speaker 1: the jury got it wrong and he was in fact
Speaker 1: a murderer, and that's why he's suing Nationwide News, publisher
Speaker 1: of The Australian, Headley Thomas, and shandy sister Shanna Blackburn.
Speaker 1: The Australian's lawyers want the judge to listen to episodes
Speaker 1: one to twelve as well, because they say there's a
Speaker 1: huge amount of context and background that ensures the podcast
Speaker 1: is fair to Perros and allows the audience to make
Speaker 1: up its own mind. Peros's lawyers are arguing in court
Speaker 1: that most Australians were unaware of the coroner's finding that
Speaker 1: Peros was a murderer. They say because Shandy's story was
Speaker 1: wildly popular, sitting at the top of the podcast charts
Speaker 1: for months, it caused serious harm to his reputation. A
Speaker 1: date has not yet been set for the full hearing
Speaker 1: of this trial. What's happening right now in the Queensland
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is a high stakes preliminary hearing where Dowd's
Speaker 1: obtained sc counsel for the defendants, that is, the Australian Headley,
Speaker 1: and Shanna is attempting to have Peros's case thrown out
Speaker 1: before the case even begins. It all turns on a
Speaker 1: notion called serious harm under defamation law. Perros has to
Speaker 1: demonstrate the publication he's complaining about Episode thirteen caused him
Speaker 1: serious harm, but Siptain says that can't possibly be the case.
Speaker 4: The coroner's finding is a true fact. Episode thirteen has
Speaker 4: said nothing more than the conclusion to which the coroner came.
Speaker 4: He is a killer. The real cause of the harm
Speaker 4: to the plaintiff's reputation is because the coroner made a finding.
Speaker 4: Had it not been for that finding, this podcast may
Speaker 4: never have been made.
Speaker 1: Episode thirteen included emotional interviews with Shandy's mother and sister,
Speaker 1: and examinations of how the coroner had before him evidence
Speaker 1: that Dury never got to hear. For example, the coroner
Speaker 1: had access to CCTV of what he accepted was John
Speaker 1: Perros's car driving near the scene of Shandy's murder, and
Speaker 1: evidence about when John Perros's phone was turned on and off.
Speaker 1: The coroner had access to John Perros's initial record of
Speaker 1: interview with police, and the coroner compelled Perros to give
Speaker 1: evidence something Peros didn't want to do for fear of
Speaker 1: incriminating himself.
Speaker 4: To say of somebody that they are a murderer. It's
Speaker 4: been found that he's a murderer. To call him a murderer,
Speaker 4: or to say yeah, I agree with that finding. What
Speaker 4: more harm does that do? How is its serious harm?
Speaker 1: Just as Peter Applegarth put this to Dowd's Obtain, Episode
Speaker 1: thirteen presented all these facts, but it also endorsed the
Speaker 1: coroner's findings and suggested the jury got it wrong.
Speaker 2: It bolsters the coroner's finding to something that may be right,
Speaker 2: may be wrong, probably right, to something that is definitely right.
Speaker 4: They are true facts that there was evidence that was
Speaker 4: heard by the coroner that was not heard by the jury.
Speaker 4: Episode thirteen was a revelation of those facts that were
Speaker 4: part of the finding and providing some explanation to the listeners.
Speaker 4: How could he have been acquitted? Well, it was made
Speaker 4: plain the coroner had evidence the jury didn't have.
Speaker 1: After the break exactly what Episode thirteen said. Original investigative
Speaker 1: reporting is what we do at The Australian every day.
Speaker 1: In a world of misinformation and hot takes, you can
Speaker 1: invest in reliable, credible, journalism for a lot less than
Speaker 1: the price of your morning coffee. Right now, it's a
Speaker 1: dollar a week for the first four weeks. Check us
Speaker 1: out at the Australian dot com dot ayu and we'll
Speaker 1: be back after this break. In court on Tuesday, David Helvajian,
Speaker 1: the barrister representing John Perros, took the judge through the
Speaker 1: transcript of episode thirteen and explained why he believed it
Speaker 1: caused serious harm to his client. We'll play the lines
Speaker 1: from the episode with David Helvagian's commentary. We've used a
Speaker 1: voice actor to bring you David Helvagian's words. First, you'll
Speaker 1: hear the real audio from episode thirteen with Shanna Blackburn
Speaker 1: speaking to Headley Thomas.
Speaker 3: One matter of.
Speaker 7: Fact, it was him, how can you be so sure?
Speaker 5: And then we have these lines that I say directly
Speaker 5: go to this publication establishing that the acquittal was wrong.
Speaker 3: Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at
Speaker 3: the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out
Speaker 3: before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been seen,
Speaker 3: and it's undeniable. When you have seen all that evidence
Speaker 3: together that there is any other person responsible.
Speaker 7: For this, then what you are saying is that he's
Speaker 7: got away with murder.
Speaker 3: App I think it's a letdown in our justice system.
Speaker 5: To episodes thirteen, my submission is the most likely inference
Speaker 5: is people know the plaintiff is one of two suspects,
Speaker 5: they know about the coroner's findings. There's a question in
Speaker 5: their minds why there's a dichotomy between a jury acquittal
Speaker 5: within two hours versus a coroner's findings. Mister Perros is
Speaker 5: a suspect with mister William Daniel, and there's a big
Speaker 5: question mark as to who really committed the murder.
Speaker 1: Helvajian had earlier presented as evidence a few anonymous Reddit comments,
Speaker 1: including these.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent he did just listen to this. Her
Speaker 3: ex absolutely did it.
Speaker 5: That kind of certainty is what episode thirteen provides, and
Speaker 5: that's where serious harm arises.
Speaker 1: In episode thirteen, Healy Thomas tells the audience John Perros's phone,
Speaker 1: which was rarely turned off, had been switched off on
Speaker 1: the nights before Shandy's murder. Headley spoke to Vicky Blackburn,
Speaker 1: Andy's mother.
Speaker 7: Now, the jurors in John's murder trial didn't hear anything
Speaker 7: about John's mobile phone usage, and that inactivity, but Vicky
Speaker 7: and Shammer and the cops knew it.
Speaker 8: He went to three nights. He did the same thing.
Speaker 8: He turned his phone off at the same time. He
Speaker 8: tried that for three nights and got a successful.
Speaker 5: Vicki Blackburn, the victim's mother, insinuates that he got lucky
Speaker 5: that night she was walking home from work the prior
Speaker 5: knight she got picked up by her boyfriend. The insinuation
Speaker 5: is he was stalking. Now that evidence wasn't before the jury,
Speaker 5: so it's another element that undercuts the acquittal.
Speaker 1: In my submission, David Helvagian read to the judge words
Speaker 1: in the episode from former detective Scott Furlong. He and
Speaker 1: Headley were discussing the fact that some of the evidence
Speaker 1: that was before the coroner had not been put to
Speaker 1: the jury. She is got Furlong talking to Headley in
Speaker 1: episode thirteen. Scott Furlong speaks first, so what.
Speaker 9: Would the baggyars detective know about prosecuting a case or
Speaker 9: trust the process?
Speaker 10: I hear that at the same time as you've said,
Speaker 10: you're so disappointed because in your view, you arrested the
Speaker 10: right person, so therefore the process you've trusted has freed
Speaker 10: the killer.
Speaker 9: Yeah, take that one.
Speaker 5: To bed with you.
Speaker 2: It's hard to get the hair around that it is.
Speaker 9: But yeah, you feel you've let the family down, You
Speaker 9: feel you let the community down to have a not
Speaker 9: guilty verdict when you know in your heart of hearts
Speaker 9: that there's somebody that's responsible for her murder and you
Speaker 9: arrested that person and put them before the courts. We
Speaker 9: did our part.
Speaker 2: We caught the killer.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, Here's how David Helvajan described that in
Speaker 1: court on Tuesday.
Speaker 5: Now, if comments like that do not remove any doubt
Speaker 5: in the listener's mind, it actually gets worse in my
Speaker 5: respectful submission.
Speaker 1: Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story
Speaker 1: wouldn't know well, forensic scientist Kirsty Wright. She examined why
Speaker 1: the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John Perros's
Speaker 1: car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's work
Speaker 1: led to stunning revelations in the podcast that Queensland's entire
Speaker 1: DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told the
Speaker 1: court it all added up to a strong insinuation in
Speaker 1: the episode that the coroner was right and the jury
Speaker 1: was wrong, and he said it was all made worse
Speaker 1: by the fact The Australian is a high quality publication.
Speaker 5: This is an investigative true crime podcast with experience, credibility, expertise.
Speaker 5: It's not a headline or a two column piece.
Speaker 1: Helvagian also said episode thirteen presented itself as the final
Speaker 1: conclusion that Peros did it.
Speaker 5: Episode thirteen so leads to certainty that it causes serious harm.
Speaker 5: How can it otherwise when you have such a credible
Speaker 5: publication interviewing the investigative police officer, the mother of the victim,
Speaker 5: the sister of the victim, a DNA expert, a criminal
Speaker 5: lawyer who says it's bad evidence. Those will point in
Speaker 5: my respectful submission to the end of the story.
Speaker 1: Justice Peter Applegarth has reserved his decision and will be back,
Speaker 1: possibly at the end of August, but more likely in
Speaker 1: September to let John Perros and the defendants know their fate.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us on the front and don't forget
Speaker 1: to join ours. Subscribers at the Australian dot com dot
Speaker 1: au