Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm christinamiot.
Speaker 1: It's Monday, January sixth Australians will have to wait until
Speaker 1: twenty thirty for living standards to go back up. That's
Speaker 1: according to a fresh analysis of the government's midyear economic update,
Speaker 1: and one of the country's leading economists says a lack
Speaker 1: of bipartisanship on productivity is to blame. Orcus is coming,
Speaker 1: but Australian companies aren't prepared to take up the lucrative
Speaker 1: contracts on offer as part of the Defense Pact. Just
Speaker 1: one company has received the globally recognized nuclear safety certification
Speaker 1: required to do the job. Those exclusive stories a live
Speaker 1: right now at The Australian dot com dot Au Australian's podcast.
Speaker 1: Shandy's Story was back in the spotlight last year after
Speaker 1: Shandy Blackburn's ex boyfriend sued for defamation. He claimed his
Speaker 1: reputation was seriously harmed when National Chief correspondent Hedley Thomas
Speaker 1: reported a coroner's finding that he did kill Shandy in
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen. Perros has always denied any wrongdoing, and in August,
Speaker 1: a Queensland Supreme Court Judge dismissed the defamation action. This
Speaker 1: episode originally aired on July thirty one and explored a
Speaker 1: big question, is it okay for journalists to question a
Speaker 1: jury's finding. It's hosted by The Australian's editorial director and
Speaker 1: the regular host of The Front, Claire Harvey.
Speaker 2: It's one of the most harrowing cases in Australian history.
Speaker 3: I just yelled out as anyone got a torch, Dingo's
Speaker 3: 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 imprisonment.
Speaker 6: Today it has ended with the fourth coronial inquest finding
Speaker 6: that Azaria Chamberlain was killed by Dingo, as her parents
Speaker 6: had claimed. From the beginning.
Speaker 2: The story of Lindy Chamberlain and her husband Michael, whose
Speaker 2: nine week old baby Azaria died at Ularu in nineteen eighty.
Speaker 2: It's one of our greatest miscarriages of justice. A family's
Speaker 2: life ruined by a wrongful conviction. A jury found them guilty.
Speaker 2: Three decades later, a coroner, examining fresh evidence, said they
Speaker 2: were not guilty. This is Coroner Elizabeth Morris 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 2: The case of Aaria Chamberlain was invoked in the Queensland
Speaker 2: Supreme Court on Wednesday by Justice Peter Applegarth. He's hearing
Speaker 2: another case where a jury's decision went the opposite way
Speaker 2: to a coroner.
Speaker 7: The coroner found the Dingo did it? A Darwin jury
Speaker 7: finds Lyndy Chamberlain did it. The coroner was right.
Speaker 2: This is the matter of John Perros. He was acquitted
Speaker 2: by a jury in twenty nineteen of murdering his ex
Speaker 2: girlfriend Shandy Blackburn, but he was found by a coroner
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty to be the murderer. We're using a
Speaker 2: voice actor to bring you the judge's words as spoken
Speaker 2: in court.
Speaker 7: So don't we have something similar here that the jury
Speaker 7: acquitted the tone of episode thirteen is doing their duty.
Speaker 7: They should have acquitted on the evidence that was before them,
Speaker 7: but the coroner made these findings on additional evidence.
Speaker 2: The judge was questioning David Helvajian, a barrister representing John
Speaker 2: Perros in his defamation case sparked by The Australian's blockbuster
Speaker 2: investigative podcast Shandy's Story. Peros has always denied killing Shandy,
Speaker 2: just as Applegarth is asking this. Just like in the
Speaker 2: Chamberlain case, the jury in John Perros's case did not
Speaker 2: have the same evidence that the coroner was later able
Speaker 2: to consider. The podcast pointed this out and even quoted
Speaker 2: Shandy's mother saying if she was on the jury, she
Speaker 2: would probably have acquitted Peros because the evidence just wasn't there.
Speaker 2: So the judge wants to know. Isn't the podcast allowed
Speaker 2: to point this out? Here's what David Helvajian, representing John Perros,
Speaker 2: 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 the listener why they can be sure of murderer.
Speaker 2: This case is a big deal, not just for us
Speaker 2: at The Australian, but for journalism more generally. If a
Speaker 2: jury makes one finding and a coroner makes another, how
Speaker 2: are journalists supposed to report Shandy Blackburn was left to
Speaker 2: die in a gutter in the North Queensland tropical city
Speaker 2: of Mackay in February twenty thirteen. She had been stabbed
Speaker 2: more than twenty times as she walked home from work.
Speaker 2: Her ex boyfriend John Perros was charged and acquitted of
Speaker 2: the murder, but a coroner who compelled Perros to give evidence,
Speaker 2: found he did stab Shandy to death. That would have
Speaker 2: been the end of it, because once acquitted, Peros could
Speaker 2: not be tried again without fresh evidence, until investigative journalist
Speaker 2: Headley Thomas came along with his twenty twenty one podcast
Speaker 2: for the Australian Shandy's Story. This is a moment from
Speaker 2: episode one of shanny Story.
Speaker 8: Shandy and John were sometimes in passionate all consuming love
Speaker 8: and at other times in deep, self doubting despair at
Speaker 8: their exhausting, abusive rows. The jealousies were toxic. John had
Speaker 8: made no secret of what he called his serious trust issues.
Speaker 2: In that first episode, Headley explored doubts over who really
Speaker 2: killed Shandy.
Speaker 8: I've interviewed Mackay friends of John Perros and talked to
Speaker 8: others at length off the record. They described John as
Speaker 8: gentle and caring, a tough fighter in the boxing ring,
Speaker 8: but a good natured soul and loyal to a fault,
Speaker 8: A bit intense in relationships, yes, but surely not a murderer.
Speaker 2: Peros is not complaining about the first twelve episodes of
Speaker 2: this podcast. He says episode thirteen defamed him by suggesting
Speaker 2: the jury got it wrong and he was in fact
Speaker 2: a murderer, and that's why his suing Nationwide News publisher
Speaker 2: of The Australian, Headley Thomas, and Shandy's sister, Shanna Blackburn.
Speaker 2: The Australian's lawyers want the judge to listen to episodes
Speaker 2: one to twelve as well, because they say there's a
Speaker 2: huge amount of context and background that ensures the podcast
Speaker 2: is fair to Peros and allows the audience to make
Speaker 2: up its own mind. Peros's lawyers are arguing in court
Speaker 2: that most Australians were unaware of the coroner's finding that
Speaker 2: Peros was a murderer. They say because Shandy's story was
Speaker 2: wildly popular, sitting at the top of the podcast charts
Speaker 2: for months, it caused serious harm to his reputation. A
Speaker 2: date has not yet been set for the full hearing
Speaker 2: of this trial. What's happening right now in the Queensland
Speaker 2: Supreme Court is a high stakes preliminary hearing where Dowd's
Speaker 2: obtained sc counsel for the defendants, that is, the Australian
Speaker 2: Headley and Shanna is attempting to have Peros's case thrown
Speaker 2: out before the case even begins. It all turns on
Speaker 2: a notion called serious harm under defamation law. Perros has
Speaker 2: to demonstrate the publication he's complaining about Episode thirteen caused
Speaker 2: him serious harm, but Siptain says that can't possibly be
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 4: came he is a killer. The real cause of the
Speaker 4: harm to the plaintiff's reputation is because the coroner made
Speaker 4: a finding. Had it not been for that finding, this
Speaker 4: podcast may never have been made.
Speaker 2: Episode thirteen included emotional interviews with Shandy's mother and sister,
Speaker 2: and examinations of how the coroner had before him evidence
Speaker 2: that Dury never got to hear. For example, the coroner
Speaker 2: had access to CCTV of what he accepted was John
Speaker 2: Perros's car driving near the scene of Shandy's murder, and
Speaker 2: evidence about when John Perros's phone was turned on and off.
Speaker 2: The coroner had access to John Perros's initial record of
Speaker 2: interview with police, and the coroner compelled Perros to give evidence,
Speaker 2: something Peros didn't want to do for fear of 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 2: Just as Peter Applegarth put this to Dowd's obtain, Episode
Speaker 2: thirteen presented all these facts, but it also endorsed the
Speaker 2: coroner's findings and suggested the jury got it wrong.
Speaker 7: It bolsters the coroner's finding to something that may be right,
Speaker 7: 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 were part
Speaker 4: 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 2: After the break exactly what episode thirteen said. Original investigative
Speaker 2: reporting is what we do at The Australian every day.
Speaker 2: In a world of misinformation and hot takes. You can
Speaker 2: invest in reliable, credible journalism for a lot less than
Speaker 2: the price of your morning coffee. Right now, it's a
Speaker 2: dollar a week for the first four weeks. Check us
Speaker 2: out at the Australian dot com dot ayu and we'll
Speaker 2: be back after this break. In court on Tuesday, David Helvajian,
Speaker 2: the barrister representing John Perros, took the judge through the
Speaker 2: transcript of episode thirteen and explained why he believed it
Speaker 2: caused serious harm to his client. We'll play the lines
Speaker 2: from the episode with David Helvagian's commentary. We've used a
Speaker 2: voice actor to bring you David Helvagian's words. First, you'll
Speaker 2: hear the real audio from episode thirteen with Shanna Blackburn
Speaker 2: speaking to Headley Thomas.
Speaker 9: One matter of fact, it was him, how can you
Speaker 9: 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 9: Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at
Speaker 9: the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out
Speaker 9: before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been
Speaker 9: seen and it's undeniable. When you have seen all that
Speaker 9: evidence together that there is any other person responsible for this.
Speaker 8: Then what you are saying is that he's got away
Speaker 8: with murder.
Speaker 9: I think it's a letdown in our justice system.
Speaker 5: Prior to episode thirteen. My submission is the most likely
Speaker 5: inference 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 2: Helvajian had earlier presented as evidence a few anonymous Reddit comments,
Speaker 2: including these one hundred percent he did just listen to this.
Speaker 2: Her 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 2: In episode thirteen, heavily Thomas tells the audience John Perros's phone,
Speaker 2: which was rarely turned off, had been switched off on
Speaker 2: the nights before Shandy's murder. Headley spoke to Vicky Blackburn,
Speaker 2: Shandy's mother.
Speaker 8: Now, the jurors in John's murder trial didn't hear anything
Speaker 8: about John's mobile phone usage and that inactivity, but Vicky
Speaker 8: and Shanna and the cops knew it.
Speaker 3: He went to three nights he did the same thing.
Speaker 3: He turned his phone off at the same time. He
Speaker 3: 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 2: In my submission, David Helvagian read to the judge words
Speaker 2: in the episode from former detective Scott Furlong. We're discussing
Speaker 2: the fact that some of the evidence that was before
Speaker 2: the coroner had not been put to the jury. She
Speaker 2: has got Furlong talking to Headley in episode thirteen. Scott
Speaker 2: Furlong speaks first, So what.
Speaker 10: Would the baggyar's detective know about prosecuting a case or
Speaker 10: trust the process.
Speaker 11: I hear that at the same time as you've said,
Speaker 11: you're so disappointed because, in your view, you arrested the
Speaker 11: right person. So therefore the process you've trusted has freed
Speaker 11: the killer.
Speaker 10: Yeah, take that one to.
Speaker 3: Bed with you. It's hard to get your hair around.
Speaker 7: That, it is.
Speaker 10: But yeah, you feel you've let the family down, You
Speaker 10: feel you let the community down to have a not
Speaker 10: guilty verdict when you know in your heart of hearts
Speaker 10: that there's somebody that's responsible for her murder and you
Speaker 10: arrested that person and put them before the courts. We
Speaker 10: did our part.
Speaker 7: We caught the killer.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, Here's how David Helvagian described that in
Speaker 2: 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 2: Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story
Speaker 2: wouldn't know well, forensic scientist Kirsty Wright. She examined why
Speaker 2: the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John Perros's
Speaker 2: car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's work
Speaker 2: led to stunning revelations in the podcast that Queensland's entire
Speaker 2: DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told the
Speaker 2: court it all added up to a strong insinuation in
Speaker 2: the episode that the coroner was right and the jury
Speaker 2: was wrong, and he said it was all made worse
Speaker 2: 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 2: Helvadjin also said episode thirteen presented itself as the final
Speaker 2: 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: You can read all the nation's at best news, sport,
Speaker 1: politics and business anytime at The Australian dot com dot
Speaker 1: au