1 00:00:06,120 --> 00:00:08,480 Speaker 1: You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker 2 00:00:08,600 --> 00:00:12,760 Speaker 1: every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play 3 00:00:12,760 --> 00:00:22,200 Speaker 1: the news from the Australian. From the Australian. His What's 4 00:00:22,200 --> 00:00:27,720 Speaker 1: on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, August twenty eight. 5 00:00:29,080 --> 00:00:32,239 Speaker 1: Two hundred and seventy thousand new international students will be 6 00:00:32,240 --> 00:00:35,640 Speaker 1: allowed to study in Australia from next year. That's after 7 00:00:35,720 --> 00:00:40,120 Speaker 1: a government overhaul of its attempt to cut overall migration numbers. 8 00:00:43,159 --> 00:00:46,680 Speaker 1: Thousands of construction workers marched in rallies across the country 9 00:00:46,680 --> 00:00:50,760 Speaker 1: on Tuesday. They're protesting the appointment of administrators to the 10 00:00:50,840 --> 00:01:02,000 Speaker 1: underfire CFMU and voicing their support for ousted leader John Sitka. 11 00:01:02,320 --> 00:01:06,480 Speaker 1: A Queensland Supreme Court judge has dismissed defamation action brought 12 00:01:06,560 --> 00:01:11,479 Speaker 1: against The Australian over our podcast Shandy Story. Justice Peter 13 00:01:11,560 --> 00:01:16,320 Speaker 1: Applegarth said John Perros didn't demonstrate he'd been seriously harmed 14 00:01:16,440 --> 00:01:21,200 Speaker 1: by the podcast. Perros has always denied any wrongdoing. That's 15 00:01:21,280 --> 00:01:28,360 Speaker 1: today's episode. One of the biggest true crime podcasts in 16 00:01:28,440 --> 00:01:32,840 Speaker 1: recent years is Shandy's Story. The Australian's investigation into the 17 00:01:32,840 --> 00:01:37,280 Speaker 1: brutal twenty thirteen murder of a young woman, Shandy Blackburn. 18 00:01:37,480 --> 00:01:41,399 Speaker 1: The podcast created by our national Chief correspondent Hedley Thomas, 19 00:01:41,600 --> 00:01:46,080 Speaker 1: sparked two commissions of inquiry into how Queensland's forensic DNA 20 00:01:46,160 --> 00:01:51,440 Speaker 1: laboratory was totally failing victims of crime. But Shandy's story 21 00:01:51,520 --> 00:01:55,960 Speaker 1: also triggered a defamation case brought by Shandy's ex boyfriend, 22 00:01:56,160 --> 00:02:00,920 Speaker 1: John Perros. Perros sued the Australian's parent company Wide News, 23 00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:06,400 Speaker 1: Heedley Thomas, and Shandy's sister, Shanna Blackburn, and on Tuesday, 24 00:02:06,480 --> 00:02:10,000 Speaker 1: the Queensland Supreme Court dismissed Perros's case. 25 00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:14,359 Speaker 2: I was enormously relieved, Claire, and I know that Vicky 26 00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:18,480 Speaker 2: Blackburn and Shanna Blackburn, the mother and sister of Shandy, 27 00:02:19,000 --> 00:02:23,360 Speaker 2: were also extremely relieved. I spoke to Vicky very soon 28 00:02:23,440 --> 00:02:27,400 Speaker 2: after we got the news and she was elated, and 29 00:02:27,440 --> 00:02:30,920 Speaker 2: then I spoke to Shanna and she was similarly very happy. 30 00:02:31,120 --> 00:02:35,640 Speaker 2: They've been through an enormous amount of grief and stress 31 00:02:36,639 --> 00:02:41,640 Speaker 2: and then having the person whom they believe murdered their 32 00:02:41,720 --> 00:02:46,959 Speaker 2: daughter and sister suing them for defamation was a very 33 00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:52,040 Speaker 2: difficult pill to swallow, and hopefully this finding by Justice 34 00:02:52,080 --> 00:02:55,200 Speaker 2: Applegarth will make a significant difference. 35 00:02:56,560 --> 00:02:59,320 Speaker 1: He is a voice actor reading the words spoken in 36 00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:01,880 Speaker 1: court by Justice Peter Applegarth. 37 00:03:02,520 --> 00:03:04,040 Speaker 3: The proceeding is dismissed. 38 00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:07,880 Speaker 1: The judge found John Perross had not meant a crucial 39 00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:11,040 Speaker 1: test for the case to proceed to a trial. 40 00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:15,320 Speaker 3: The plaintiff has not discharged his burden of proof that 41 00:03:15,440 --> 00:03:19,080 Speaker 3: Episode thirteen caused serious harm to his reputation. 42 00:03:19,960 --> 00:03:23,360 Speaker 1: This is not a finding about who killed Shandy Blackburn. 43 00:03:23,919 --> 00:03:27,760 Speaker 1: Justice Applegrath makes no comment on that. It's important to 44 00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:31,120 Speaker 1: note that John Perros was acquitted by a jury of 45 00:03:31,240 --> 00:03:36,040 Speaker 1: murdering Shandy. He has always denied any wrongdoing and it's 46 00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:40,120 Speaker 1: within his rights to appeal this finding to a higher court. 47 00:03:41,800 --> 00:03:45,000 Speaker 2: We've been in Court Claire for two years with this case. 48 00:03:45,680 --> 00:03:49,560 Speaker 2: The cost has been enormous to the newspaper and of 49 00:03:49,600 --> 00:03:53,360 Speaker 2: course the individuals who are involved, and I'm thinking particularly 50 00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:57,880 Speaker 2: of Vicky and Shanna go through enormous worry, stress and concern. 51 00:03:58,040 --> 00:04:02,160 Speaker 2: But they've been storn and The Australian has been very 52 00:04:02,200 --> 00:04:06,200 Speaker 2: staunched too. We've had to rely on our lawyers significantly 53 00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:08,920 Speaker 2: and they've done an amazing job. But this is the 54 00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:13,680 Speaker 2: cost of this kind of journalism. It's very expensive. It 55 00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:18,120 Speaker 2: doesn't come easily and we have to back ourselves and 56 00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:20,040 Speaker 2: fight fight. 57 00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:27,719 Speaker 1: Shandy Blackburn was left to die in a gutter in 58 00:04:27,760 --> 00:04:32,200 Speaker 1: the North Queensland tropical city of Mackay in February twenty thirteen. 59 00:04:32,760 --> 00:04:36,320 Speaker 1: She'd been stabbed more than twenty times as she walked 60 00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:41,719 Speaker 1: home from work. Shandy's ex boyfriend, John Perros, was charged 61 00:04:41,839 --> 00:04:46,200 Speaker 1: with murder, but in twenty seventeen a jury acquitted him. 62 00:04:47,040 --> 00:04:49,880 Speaker 1: Then the matter went to the coroner, who compelled Perros 63 00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:52,920 Speaker 1: to give evidence and had access to evidence that was 64 00:04:52,960 --> 00:04:57,000 Speaker 1: not presented to the jury that had acquitted Perros. That coroner, 65 00:04:57,120 --> 00:05:01,760 Speaker 1: David O'Connell in twenty nineteen, found Peros did stab Shandy 66 00:05:01,800 --> 00:05:07,400 Speaker 1: to death. Peros has always denied wrongdoing, and once acquitted, 67 00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:11,359 Speaker 1: Perros could not be tried again unless fresh and compelling 68 00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:15,919 Speaker 1: evidence came to light. In twenty twenty one, The Australian's 69 00:05:16,000 --> 00:05:20,200 Speaker 1: National Chief correspondent Headley Thomas came along with his podcast 70 00:05:20,360 --> 00:05:26,279 Speaker 1: Shandy Story. This Is Shandy sister Shanna Blackburn speaking to 71 00:05:26,320 --> 00:05:28,680 Speaker 1: Headley Thomas in episode thirteen. 72 00:05:29,240 --> 00:05:33,880 Speaker 4: Am I allowed to say that there's absolutely no doubt 73 00:05:33,880 --> 00:05:37,800 Speaker 4: in our minds that John Perros is the one that 74 00:05:37,880 --> 00:05:38,880 Speaker 4: killed Shandy Buckburn. 75 00:05:40,120 --> 00:05:42,240 Speaker 1: One matter of fact, it was. 76 00:05:42,279 --> 00:05:44,920 Speaker 2: Him, But how could you be so sure? 77 00:05:45,279 --> 00:05:48,320 Speaker 4: Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at 78 00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:52,760 Speaker 4: the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out 79 00:05:52,920 --> 00:05:56,640 Speaker 4: before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been seen, 80 00:05:57,160 --> 00:06:01,920 Speaker 4: and it's undeniable. When you have seen all that evidence 81 00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:07,320 Speaker 4: together that there is any other person responsible for. 82 00:06:07,279 --> 00:06:11,280 Speaker 2: This, then what you are saying is that he's got 83 00:06:11,320 --> 00:06:12,280 Speaker 2: away with murder. 84 00:06:13,640 --> 00:06:16,640 Speaker 4: I think it's a letdown in our justice system. 85 00:06:17,920 --> 00:06:22,360 Speaker 1: I called Shanna Blackburn after Tuesday's judgment from Justice Peter Applegarth. 86 00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:25,640 Speaker 5: Mum and I have never really properly been able to 87 00:06:25,680 --> 00:06:31,240 Speaker 5: grieve Shandy because we've still been fighting for justice and 88 00:06:31,440 --> 00:06:35,200 Speaker 5: everything that has come along with that since. So it's 89 00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:37,960 Speaker 5: a step, but there's still so much more in that 90 00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:41,039 Speaker 5: whole journey of justice for Shandy that is to come. 91 00:06:43,160 --> 00:06:46,000 Speaker 1: I asked Shanna if she felt any hope that whoever 92 00:06:46,080 --> 00:06:48,880 Speaker 1: killed Shandy would one day be brought to justice. 93 00:06:49,560 --> 00:06:52,799 Speaker 5: There is always hope. Give me a bit emotional, because 94 00:06:52,800 --> 00:06:54,400 Speaker 5: I never want to let go of the fact that 95 00:06:54,560 --> 00:06:58,320 Speaker 5: there's hope, because they're always is. But I think after 96 00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:04,120 Speaker 5: eleven years and everything that we've been dragged through with 97 00:07:04,160 --> 00:07:09,720 Speaker 5: this process. It's hard to have faith injustice and in 98 00:07:10,080 --> 00:07:12,480 Speaker 5: the system. And I think it's also a little bit 99 00:07:12,520 --> 00:07:13,960 Speaker 5: of you don't want to get your hopes up. You 100 00:07:13,960 --> 00:07:17,440 Speaker 5: don't want to ever think about that moment that whoever 101 00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:21,880 Speaker 5: did this to her will actually one day be brought 102 00:07:21,880 --> 00:07:24,480 Speaker 5: to justice for what they did. It would be a 103 00:07:24,640 --> 00:07:29,560 Speaker 5: really amazing thing to happen. But it's very difficult to 104 00:07:29,640 --> 00:07:32,720 Speaker 5: allow ourselves to go there because of even the thought 105 00:07:32,760 --> 00:07:36,440 Speaker 5: of that, because it's just such a letdown from what 106 00:07:36,680 --> 00:07:40,680 Speaker 5: we've already discovered and of the system and the processes 107 00:07:40,720 --> 00:07:42,280 Speaker 5: and how role things can go. 108 00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:52,200 Speaker 1: Peris claimed Episode thirteen of Shandy's Story defamed him by 109 00:07:52,240 --> 00:07:56,000 Speaker 1: painting him as Shandy's murderer. The judge said John Peris's 110 00:07:56,000 --> 00:08:01,040 Speaker 1: reputation had been damaged, but not by episode three. 111 00:08:01,280 --> 00:08:06,040 Speaker 3: Had episode thirteen been a stand alone publication, then serious 112 00:08:06,080 --> 00:08:09,160 Speaker 3: harm would be easily inferred from the gravity of the 113 00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:15,440 Speaker 3: defamation and the extent of its publication. Episode thirteen was, not, however, 114 00:08:15,840 --> 00:08:21,240 Speaker 3: a standalone publication. It was the thirteenth episode in a series, 115 00:08:21,960 --> 00:08:27,160 Speaker 3: the first twelve episodes of which seriously injured the plaintiff's reputation. 116 00:08:27,960 --> 00:08:31,080 Speaker 3: I find that listeners to the first twelve episodes were 117 00:08:31,200 --> 00:08:35,000 Speaker 3: likely to conclude that the coroner's findings were right and 118 00:08:35,040 --> 00:08:38,760 Speaker 3: that the plaintiff had violently attacked Miss Blackburn with a 119 00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:44,679 Speaker 3: bladed instrument in a fast, frenzied and personal attack at 120 00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:50,360 Speaker 3: around twelve fifteen am on nine February twenty thirteen. This 121 00:08:50,520 --> 00:08:54,120 Speaker 3: conclusion is not based simply on the tendering of those 122 00:08:54,160 --> 00:08:58,880 Speaker 3: earlier publications. It relies on the perceived authority of the 123 00:08:58,880 --> 00:09:02,520 Speaker 3: persons whom he made those publications, and the form of 124 00:09:02,520 --> 00:09:07,360 Speaker 3: the publications as being the product of investigative journalism that 125 00:09:07,559 --> 00:09:13,560 Speaker 3: distinguishes the publication from a publication of rumors and bear allegations. 126 00:09:15,840 --> 00:09:19,360 Speaker 1: The judge said Peros's reputation had already been damaged by 127 00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:23,920 Speaker 1: a coroner's finding that Perros was Shandy's killer. Justice Applegarth 128 00:09:23,960 --> 00:09:26,800 Speaker 1: said the coroner's ruling, which is still live today on 129 00:09:26,800 --> 00:09:31,000 Speaker 1: the Queensland Courts website and articles about that finding, had 130 00:09:31,040 --> 00:09:36,199 Speaker 1: also caused Peros's reputation serious harm long before Headley's podcast 131 00:09:36,320 --> 00:09:39,720 Speaker 1: came along. At the center of this judgment is that 132 00:09:39,880 --> 00:09:42,480 Speaker 1: issue of serious harm. 133 00:09:42,880 --> 00:09:45,600 Speaker 6: The serious harm test is a new element of defamation 134 00:09:45,679 --> 00:09:47,880 Speaker 6: law in Australia. It's only coming to effect in the 135 00:09:47,960 --> 00:09:52,840 Speaker 6: last two years and it's something that's currently being decided 136 00:09:52,880 --> 00:09:55,839 Speaker 6: by the courts, being figured out as new judgments have 137 00:09:55,920 --> 00:09:57,640 Speaker 6: decided on the issue. 138 00:09:57,760 --> 00:10:01,120 Speaker 1: This is John Paul Cashen, a defamation specialist and a 139 00:10:01,200 --> 00:10:05,880 Speaker 1: partner at law firm Thomson Gear which advises the Australian Well. 140 00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:08,719 Speaker 6: It's a new test that's become part of the law 141 00:10:08,760 --> 00:10:11,880 Speaker 6: of defamation in Australia in the last few years and 142 00:10:12,120 --> 00:10:15,440 Speaker 6: it's quite significant because what it does is switches the 143 00:10:15,440 --> 00:10:19,880 Speaker 6: onus onto the plaintiff to prove that the publication has 144 00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:22,520 Speaker 6: hurt their reputation. And what it's aimed at doing is 145 00:10:22,559 --> 00:10:25,600 Speaker 6: weeding out trivial claims. We used to have an old 146 00:10:25,640 --> 00:10:28,600 Speaker 6: law of triviality that was meant to weed out trivial 147 00:10:28,600 --> 00:10:30,800 Speaker 6: claims and it wasn't very effective, so they put in 148 00:10:30,800 --> 00:10:33,880 Speaker 6: a new one called the serious harm test, and it 149 00:10:33,960 --> 00:10:36,319 Speaker 6: means that the plaintiff has to establish not just that 150 00:10:36,600 --> 00:10:39,720 Speaker 6: it's damaged their reputation a little bit, but it must 151 00:10:39,760 --> 00:10:42,760 Speaker 6: have done serious harm to their reputation. And it's starting 152 00:10:42,800 --> 00:10:45,240 Speaker 6: to have an effect in knocking out some of these 153 00:10:45,640 --> 00:10:48,000 Speaker 6: smaller types of claims you know, we used to have 154 00:10:48,559 --> 00:10:51,200 Speaker 6: one star Google reviews being sued over and the courts 155 00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:53,120 Speaker 6: were getting clogged up with these sorts of cases that 156 00:10:53,400 --> 00:10:56,360 Speaker 6: were seen to be not the kind of cases that 157 00:10:56,440 --> 00:10:59,040 Speaker 6: really should be litigated in our court system, and so 158 00:10:59,400 --> 00:11:01,880 Speaker 6: the new harm test is aimed at weeding out those 159 00:11:01,880 --> 00:11:02,680 Speaker 6: sorts of cases. 160 00:11:04,640 --> 00:11:07,240 Speaker 1: During the hearing in the Queensland Supreme Court, a barrister 161 00:11:07,320 --> 00:11:10,840 Speaker 1: for John Perros, David Helvagian, told the court Episode thirteen 162 00:11:10,920 --> 00:11:14,080 Speaker 1: defamed Peros by suggesting the jury got it wrong and 163 00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:17,360 Speaker 1: the coroner was right, that therefore he was a murderer. 164 00:11:17,920 --> 00:11:21,080 Speaker 1: Our lawyers successfully argued that the judge should listen to 165 00:11:21,120 --> 00:11:24,440 Speaker 1: episodes one to twelve of the podcast two to hear 166 00:11:24,520 --> 00:11:28,040 Speaker 1: our journalism in all its context. We've used a voice 167 00:11:28,080 --> 00:11:31,320 Speaker 1: actor to bring you David Helvagian's words from the hearing 168 00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:33,760 Speaker 1: on this question of serious harm. 169 00:11:34,200 --> 00:11:38,520 Speaker 7: Episodes thirteen publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations 170 00:11:38,760 --> 00:11:42,480 Speaker 7: known to society, as your honor nose. The crime of 171 00:11:42,600 --> 00:11:45,960 Speaker 7: murder in this state carries a life sentence. It is 172 00:11:46,040 --> 00:11:50,800 Speaker 7: probably society's greatest crime. To label someone the murderer of 173 00:11:50,840 --> 00:11:55,480 Speaker 7: another person is just of the highest seriousness However, to 174 00:11:55,559 --> 00:11:59,040 Speaker 7: do so as part of an investigative true crime publication 175 00:11:59,520 --> 00:12:03,480 Speaker 7: from a mainstream media company and from a journalist with 176 00:12:03,640 --> 00:12:07,400 Speaker 7: a credible history in these matters is even more serious. 177 00:12:08,440 --> 00:12:12,719 Speaker 7: Episode thirteen had a far greater reach across Australia than 178 00:12:12,760 --> 00:12:17,960 Speaker 7: the reporting for coroner's finding. The other inference, clearly is 179 00:12:18,040 --> 00:12:21,760 Speaker 7: a podcast such as this would not have approximately three 180 00:12:21,800 --> 00:12:25,800 Speaker 7: hundred and eighty thousand downloads in Australia if it wasn't credible. 181 00:12:27,559 --> 00:12:30,880 Speaker 1: The judge said when discussing costs that John Perros's case 182 00:12:30,960 --> 00:12:33,880 Speaker 1: was not without merit, and he says that episodes one 183 00:12:33,920 --> 00:12:38,000 Speaker 1: to twelve were where the serious harm to Peros's reputation occurred, 184 00:12:38,080 --> 00:12:42,040 Speaker 1: as well as in other reporting. So did Perros sue 185 00:12:42,240 --> 00:12:43,280 Speaker 1: on the wrong thing? 186 00:12:44,000 --> 00:12:47,000 Speaker 6: Well, the judgment is quite complicated on that issue. But 187 00:12:47,240 --> 00:12:50,040 Speaker 6: the judge didn't just look at episodes one to twelve. 188 00:12:50,160 --> 00:12:53,400 Speaker 6: He also looked at the fact that the coroner several 189 00:12:53,480 --> 00:12:57,079 Speaker 6: years earlier had found that he'd murdered Shandy, and then 190 00:12:57,200 --> 00:12:59,800 Speaker 6: all of the associated publications around that. It was on 191 00:12:59,800 --> 00:13:02,640 Speaker 6: the front page of the Courier Mail, there were news reports, 192 00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:05,800 Speaker 6: and so what he found was it was episodes one 193 00:13:05,880 --> 00:13:09,000 Speaker 6: to twelve, but also all of that other reporting. So 194 00:13:09,679 --> 00:13:12,120 Speaker 6: I don't think we can say, based on this judgment 195 00:13:12,200 --> 00:13:14,120 Speaker 6: that the result would have been any different if it'd 196 00:13:14,160 --> 00:13:17,080 Speaker 6: sued over episodes one to twelve. We just don't really know, 197 00:13:17,520 --> 00:13:19,680 Speaker 6: but it's certainly not the case that Perils would have 198 00:13:19,679 --> 00:13:22,880 Speaker 6: won based on this judgment if he'd sued over episodes 199 00:13:22,880 --> 00:13:23,360 Speaker 6: one to twelve. 200 00:13:23,400 --> 00:13:26,400 Speaker 2: As well. 201 00:13:26,520 --> 00:13:30,200 Speaker 1: You've already heard that episode thirteen contained Shanna Blackburn's candid 202 00:13:30,280 --> 00:13:34,120 Speaker 1: views about who killed Shandy. Also in episode thirteen, Headley 203 00:13:34,120 --> 00:13:38,319 Speaker 1: Thomas discussed with Shanner and Vicki Blackburn, Shandy's mother, evidence 204 00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:41,080 Speaker 1: that the coroner considered which had not been put before 205 00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:45,240 Speaker 1: the jury, Evidence like CCTV showing a car similar to 206 00:13:45,320 --> 00:13:48,360 Speaker 1: John's car driving near the scene of Shandy's death that night, 207 00:13:49,200 --> 00:13:52,480 Speaker 1: and phone records showing John Perils's mobile phone, which was 208 00:13:52,600 --> 00:13:55,880 Speaker 1: rarely turned off, had been switched off on the nights 209 00:13:55,960 --> 00:14:00,320 Speaker 1: before Shandy's murder. Here's Headley speaking to Vicki black Burn, 210 00:14:00,400 --> 00:14:02,440 Speaker 1: Shandy's mother, in episode thirteen. 211 00:14:03,520 --> 00:14:06,720 Speaker 8: Now, the jurors in John's murder trial didn't hear anything 212 00:14:06,760 --> 00:14:12,000 Speaker 8: about John's mobile phone usage and that inactivity, but Vicky 213 00:14:12,120 --> 00:14:14,160 Speaker 8: and Shama and the cops knew it. 214 00:14:15,080 --> 00:14:20,000 Speaker 9: He went for three nights, he did the same thing. 215 00:14:20,120 --> 00:14:23,080 Speaker 9: He turned his phone off at the same time. He 216 00:14:23,200 --> 00:14:26,360 Speaker 9: tried that for three nights and got successful. 217 00:14:27,600 --> 00:14:30,920 Speaker 1: Here's what David Helvagian, counsel for John Perros, told the 218 00:14:31,000 --> 00:14:32,760 Speaker 1: Queensland Supreme Court about that. 219 00:14:33,720 --> 00:14:37,080 Speaker 10: Vicki Blackburn, the victim's mother, insinuates that he got lucky 220 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:40,720 Speaker 10: that night she was walking home from work the prior 221 00:14:40,800 --> 00:14:44,520 Speaker 10: knight she got picked up by her boyfriend. The insinuation 222 00:14:44,960 --> 00:14:48,880 Speaker 10: is he was stalking. Now that evidence wasn't before the jury, 223 00:14:49,040 --> 00:14:53,119 Speaker 10: so it's another element that undercuts the acquittal in my submission. 224 00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:58,680 Speaker 1: Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story 225 00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:02,760 Speaker 1: would know well for forensic scientists, Kirsty Wright, who examined 226 00:15:02,800 --> 00:15:05,800 Speaker 1: why the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John 227 00:15:05,840 --> 00:15:11,000 Speaker 1: Perils's car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's 228 00:15:11,040 --> 00:15:15,200 Speaker 1: work led to stunning revelations in the podcast that Queensland's 229 00:15:15,360 --> 00:15:20,240 Speaker 1: entire DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told 230 00:15:20,240 --> 00:15:23,400 Speaker 1: the court it all added up to a strong insinuation 231 00:15:23,680 --> 00:15:26,480 Speaker 1: in the episode that the coroner was right and the 232 00:15:26,560 --> 00:15:27,400 Speaker 1: jury was wrong. 233 00:15:28,160 --> 00:15:30,560 Speaker 2: I really want to thank our lawyers who've done a 234 00:15:30,600 --> 00:15:34,920 Speaker 2: great job John Paul Cashen who was the senior instructing solicitor, 235 00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:39,960 Speaker 2: with our barristers Dward Subtaine and Paul Moreau. They really 236 00:15:40,280 --> 00:15:43,400 Speaker 2: got on top of the issues and ensured that no 237 00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:47,440 Speaker 2: stone was left unturned in the legal arguments. And Shandy 238 00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:52,960 Speaker 2: Blackburn's murder remains unsolved and we can only hope that 239 00:15:53,080 --> 00:15:56,560 Speaker 2: Queensland Police will just double their efforts to try to 240 00:15:56,600 --> 00:15:57,520 Speaker 2: find her killer. 241 00:16:02,160 --> 00:16:06,400 Speaker 1: Coming up the reddit posts, John Perros relied on We'll 242 00:16:06,440 --> 00:16:24,880 Speaker 1: be back after this break. Just listen to this. Her 243 00:16:24,920 --> 00:16:28,920 Speaker 1: ex absolutely did it. That's a Reddit user with the 244 00:16:28,960 --> 00:16:33,200 Speaker 1: handle bard Girl twenty three. Commenting in early twenty twenty two, 245 00:16:33,240 --> 00:16:36,000 Speaker 1: shortly after the public release of episode thirteen of the 246 00:16:36,040 --> 00:16:42,320 Speaker 1: Australians podcast Shandy Story, someone called Blonde Arbuckle agrees one 247 00:16:42,400 --> 00:16:47,160 Speaker 1: hundred percent he did, and another user, Nora Ldora, says. 248 00:16:47,040 --> 00:16:49,560 Speaker 11: I'm listening now and I feel it so clear that 249 00:16:49,640 --> 00:16:52,520 Speaker 11: it was the X. The crime was so personal and 250 00:16:52,640 --> 00:16:56,280 Speaker 11: John was abusive to Shandy. It is crazy that he 251 00:16:56,440 --> 00:16:57,040 Speaker 11: was acquitted. 252 00:16:58,800 --> 00:17:01,480 Speaker 1: Those posts are part of the evidence from John Perris's 253 00:17:01,520 --> 00:17:05,320 Speaker 1: lawyers in his claim that Shandy's story caused serious harm 254 00:17:05,359 --> 00:17:09,520 Speaker 1: to his reputation. Here's what Justice Applegarth said about those 255 00:17:09,600 --> 00:17:10,400 Speaker 1: Reddit posts. 256 00:17:11,080 --> 00:17:15,120 Speaker 3: The reddit posts do not suggest that episode thirteen changed 257 00:17:15,160 --> 00:17:18,159 Speaker 3: their minds from having no opinion as to who the 258 00:17:18,280 --> 00:17:22,720 Speaker 3: killer was or believing that someone else was the person responsible, 259 00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:26,560 Speaker 3: to having an absolute or one hundred percent belief that 260 00:17:26,640 --> 00:17:31,360 Speaker 3: the plaintiff was responsible. One might reasonably infer that episode 261 00:17:31,400 --> 00:17:36,240 Speaker 3: thirteen contributed to each of the three Reddit commentators being 262 00:17:36,359 --> 00:17:40,760 Speaker 3: convinced that the plaintiff was the killer, for example one 263 00:17:40,840 --> 00:17:44,960 Speaker 3: hundred percent he did. However, it is also reasonable to 264 00:17:45,040 --> 00:17:49,240 Speaker 3: infer that those listeners were at least fairly convinced of 265 00:17:49,280 --> 00:17:54,760 Speaker 3: the plaintiff's responsibility or strongly believed that he was responsible 266 00:17:54,920 --> 00:18:01,320 Speaker 3: for the killing before they listened to episode thirteen. Also said, 267 00:18:01,560 --> 00:18:05,640 Speaker 3: the proposition that a podcast episode that accuses a person 268 00:18:05,760 --> 00:18:08,520 Speaker 3: of murder and that is heard by a few hundred 269 00:18:08,520 --> 00:18:13,280 Speaker 3: thousand listeners does not cause serious harm to reputation is confronting. 270 00:18:14,000 --> 00:18:19,720 Speaker 3: The causation issue depends, however, on all the circumstances. For example, 271 00:18:19,960 --> 00:18:23,920 Speaker 3: if the claimant was a notorious murderer at the time 272 00:18:24,040 --> 00:18:28,320 Speaker 3: the episode was published, serious harm would not be inferred 273 00:18:29,160 --> 00:18:34,080 Speaker 3: some compelling, direct evidence of actual harm to reputation that 274 00:18:34,200 --> 00:18:38,280 Speaker 3: amounted to serious harm would be required. 275 00:18:38,359 --> 00:18:41,160 Speaker 1: And the judge said Perros's barristers said in their submissions 276 00:18:41,160 --> 00:18:43,919 Speaker 1: that Peris had a reputation as a friendly, hard working, 277 00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:47,600 Speaker 1: talented boxer, but that they didn't present any evidence or 278 00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:48,639 Speaker 1: witnesses on this. 279 00:18:49,359 --> 00:18:54,240 Speaker 3: None of the plaintiff's friends, work, colleagues, acquaintances, or family 280 00:18:54,280 --> 00:18:58,639 Speaker 3: members have said a single thing about the effect that 281 00:18:58,720 --> 00:19:03,320 Speaker 3: episode thirteen had upon their estimation of the plaintiff or 282 00:19:03,320 --> 00:19:07,639 Speaker 3: what their estimation of him was immediately before listening to 283 00:19:07,760 --> 00:19:08,760 Speaker 3: episode thirteen. 284 00:19:09,720 --> 00:19:12,080 Speaker 1: Justice Applegarth concluded that by the. 285 00:19:12,080 --> 00:19:15,800 Speaker 3: Time episode thirteen was first published, the plaintiff had a 286 00:19:15,880 --> 00:19:20,879 Speaker 3: damaged reputation in the relevant sector. Among listeners to the podcast, 287 00:19:21,640 --> 00:19:23,679 Speaker 3: he would have been viewed by listeners to be the 288 00:19:23,720 --> 00:19:27,760 Speaker 3: person who killed Miss Blackburn. They would not simply have 289 00:19:27,920 --> 00:19:30,800 Speaker 3: known him to be the person who a coroner found 290 00:19:30,800 --> 00:19:34,440 Speaker 3: to be Miss Blackburn's killer. They would have formed the view, 291 00:19:34,920 --> 00:19:38,119 Speaker 3: based on the evidence and arguments placed before them in 292 00:19:38,240 --> 00:19:42,000 Speaker 3: the series, that the coroner's finding was correct. 293 00:19:47,320 --> 00:19:49,760 Speaker 1: You can listen to Shandy's story now wherever you get 294 00:19:49,800 --> 00:19:54,560 Speaker 1: your podcasts.