Speaker 1: You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker
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 Tuesday, July thirty.
Speaker 1: Aerial patrols of Australia's Northern coastline have slumped, with operations
Speaker 1: sovereign Borders cutting back flights by twenty percent each year,
Speaker 1: even as boat arrivals increase. It's the first challenge for
Speaker 1: new Immigration and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke. The militant
Speaker 1: Construction Union CFMAU could be in administration for years. That's
Speaker 1: according to New Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt. In an
Speaker 1: exclusive interview now at The Australian dot com dot you,
Speaker 1: John Perros, the man acquitted of murdering Shandy Blackburn, is
Speaker 1: suing Shandy's sister, journalist Hedley Thomas, and the publishers of
Speaker 1: The Australian over our podcast Shandy's story. In today's episode why,
Speaker 1: John Perros says the episode caused him serious harm and
Speaker 1: what the publishers say in reply. Before we start This
Speaker 1: episode contains some adult language. One matter of fact, it
Speaker 1: was him. That's Shanna Blackburn, the sister of Shandy Blackburn,
Speaker 1: who in twenty thirteen, at the age of twenty three,
Speaker 1: was murdered in a stabbing frenzy by someone who is
Speaker 1: still at large. Peros, the man you heard Shanna accusing,
Speaker 1: has always denied killing Shandy, his ex girlfriend. Those words
Speaker 1: spoken by Shanna in episode thirteen of The Australian's investigative
Speaker 1: podcast Shandy Story are now the subject of a defamation case.
Speaker 1: John Perros is suing Nationwide News, the company that publishes
Speaker 1: The Australian, and Shanna herself, as well as our national
Speaker 1: chief correspondent Hedley Thomas, who reported and hosted Shandy Story.
Speaker 1: We've used voice actors throughout this episode to bring you
Speaker 1: the words spoken in the Queensland Supreme Court on Monday.
Speaker 2: These are the.
Speaker 1: Words of Barrister David Helvajian, acting for Peros.
Speaker 3: Episode thirteen publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations
Speaker 3: known to society.
Speaker 1: This hearing is not the defamation trial. It's a pre
Speaker 1: trial hearing to determine whether or not John peer Ross
Speaker 1: was caused serious harm by the publication of episode thirteen
Speaker 1: of Shandy story released in December twenty twenty one. Shandy
Speaker 1: was violently murdered on February ninth, twenty thirteen, as she
Speaker 1: walked home from work after midnight. The killer stabbed Shandy
Speaker 1: dozens of times, leaving her to die in a gutter.
Speaker 1: If you've listened to Shandy's story, you'll remember this harrowing
Speaker 1: audio of the person who discovered her body on a
Speaker 1: Mackay street calling triple O.
Speaker 4: Is she awake?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 3: Is breathing?
Speaker 2: Third?
Speaker 5: She don't look at all man, So concern to me?
Speaker 6: Is she breathing at all?
Speaker 2: Available?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: No, not at all, not at all?
Speaker 6: What is your name?
Speaker 1: What is your name? In twenty fourteen, Shandy's ex boyfriend,
Speaker 1: John Perros, a talented local boxer and diesel fitter, was
Speaker 1: charged with Shandy's murder. He was found not guilty.
Speaker 5: When a jury found John Perros not guilty of Shandy
Speaker 5: Blackburn's murder in twenty seventeen, it left her family and
Speaker 5: the Mackay community with even more questions. He was accused
Speaker 5: of stabbing Shandy Blackburn more than twenty times on her
Speaker 5: way home from work in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: That verdict meant Peros was free to get on with
Speaker 1: his life. But in twenty nineteen, a coroner conducted an
Speaker 1: inquest into Shandy's death. The coroner, David O'Donnell, compelled John
Speaker 1: Perros to give evidence after Perros initially refused on the
Speaker 1: ground that the evidence would tend to incriminate him. There's
Speaker 1: a rule in coronial proceedings that evidence given under compulsion
Speaker 1: in an inquest cannot be used in other proceedings. On
Speaker 1: twenty one August twenty twenty, the coroner found Perros had
Speaker 1: in fact killed Shandy with a bladed instrument. The coroner
Speaker 1: also said he believed the evidence of certain witnesses about
Speaker 1: John Perros, including that Peros had said to friends phrases
Speaker 1: like this about Shandy, I fucking hate that cunt, and
Speaker 1: something like she would be better off dead. I hate
Speaker 1: her and I would love to stab the cunt. We've
Speaker 1: used a voice actor to bring you those words. From
Speaker 1: the coroner's findings. The coroner also found that a white
Speaker 1: ute seen on CCTV near the scene of Shandy's death
Speaker 1: at approximately the time of her death was in fact
Speaker 1: John Perros's car. Peros said he couldn't remember whether he
Speaker 1: had driven on that street at that time or not.
Speaker 1: But even though the coroner found John did kill Shandy,
Speaker 1: he was not charged again because Perros had already been acquitted.
Speaker 1: The legal principle of double jeopardy means you can't be
Speaker 1: tried for the same offense twice. There are exceptions, including
Speaker 1: when fresh and compelling evidence that wasn't presented in the
Speaker 1: first trial becomes available. But Peros has not been charged again.
Speaker 1: He's got on with his life, including working in the
Speaker 1: mining industry in Wa. In December twenty twenty two, he
Speaker 1: was found guilty of an assault at a BHP mind sight.
Speaker 1: Perros was fined two thousand dollars and granted a spent conviction.
Speaker 1: Here's how The West Australian reported it at the time.
Speaker 6: John Perros claimed a trial he was acting in self
Speaker 6: defense when he laid into Alexander Gell. The forty year
Speaker 6: old fly In Flyout worker, beat and kicked mister Gall
Speaker 6: so badly it left him with significant facial injuries and
Speaker 6: the loss of a tooth. In court on one day,
Speaker 6: John Perros's lawyer argued his reputation was caused serious harm
Speaker 6: by episode thirteen of Shandy's story.
Speaker 3: As your honor knows, the crime of murder in this
Speaker 3: state carries a life sentence. It is probably society's greatest crime.
Speaker 3: To label someone the murderer of another person is just
Speaker 3: of the highest seriousness. However, to do so as part
Speaker 3: of an investigative true crime publication from a mainstream media
Speaker 3: company and from a journalist with a credible history in
Speaker 3: these matters is even more serious.
Speaker 1: So Helvajin is saying that if this had been published elsewhere,
Speaker 1: it might not have caused the same level of harm.
Speaker 3: Your honor would know The Australian as a mass media
Speaker 3: publication of serious repute. It's not a tabloid or a
Speaker 3: daily rag type publication.
Speaker 1: I've got to jump in here to defend tabloids. By
Speaker 1: the way, the shape of a newspaper doesn't determine its quality,
Speaker 1: and plenty of outstanding journalists and great journalism in tabloid papers. Anyway,
Speaker 1: back to David Helvagian.
Speaker 3: Secondly, you ought to be aware of the name Hedley
Speaker 3: Thomas and that he is a journalist who not only
Speaker 3: led the Shandy Story podcast, but he's also the second defendant.
Speaker 1: At this point, the judge weighed in this is a
Speaker 1: voice actor reading justice. Peter Applegarth's words, I.
Speaker 2: Made a disclosure before hearing back in April that I
Speaker 2: met mister Thomas professionally many years ago, but I haven't
Speaker 2: seen him in person or spoken to him for sixteen years.
Speaker 3: In that time period, he has become a brand name
Speaker 3: in true crime podcasts.
Speaker 2: He'll forgive me if I haven't listened to his podcasts.
Speaker 3: As of today, approximately three hundred and eighty thousand people
Speaker 3: across Australia have heard the Imputation. Episode thirteen had a
Speaker 3: far greater reach across Australia than the reporting the coroner's finding.
Speaker 1: And this is where the real case begins. Helvajian On
Speaker 1: behalf of Perros says, even though the coroner in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty found John Perros killed Shandy Blackburn, his reputation was
Speaker 1: largely unharmed until Headley, Thomas and Shandy's story came along
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3: The other inference clearly is a podcast such as this
Speaker 3: would not have approximately three hundred and eighty thousand downloads
Speaker 3: in Australia if it wasn't credible. So just the fact
Speaker 3: it's a highly popular and shared and considered podcast is
Speaker 3: the circumstance of publication.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if circulation means something's credible. In America,
Speaker 2: at least you have these lunar people who have all
Speaker 2: kinds of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's a very good point.
Speaker 1: Coming up after the break. What lawyers for the Australia
Speaker 1: are arguing, as you just heard David Helvagian say, where
Speaker 1: a mass media publication of serious repute. He's a subscriber.
Speaker 1: You should be too. Join us for just a dollar
Speaker 1: a week for the first four weeks at the Australian
Speaker 1: dot com dot Au. We'll be back after this break.
Speaker 3: Just listen to this.
Speaker 1: Her ex absolutely did it. That's a Reddit user with
Speaker 1: the handle bard Girl twenty three, commenting in early twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, shortly after the public release of episode thirteen
Speaker 1: of The Australian's podcast Shandy Story, someone called Blonde our
Speaker 1: Buckle agrees one hundred percent he did, and another Reddit user,
Speaker 1: Nora Ldora, says, I'm listening now and I feel it
Speaker 1: so clear that it was the ex.
Speaker 6: The crime was so personal and John was abusive to Shandy.
Speaker 1: It's crazy that he was acquitted. These posts are part
Speaker 1: of the evidence from John Perross's lawyers in his claim
Speaker 1: that The Australians podcast caused serious harm to his reputation.
Speaker 1: You've already heard Peros's arguments. This is what the lawyers
Speaker 1: for the other side say.
Speaker 4: A coroner made a finding that Miss Blackburn died as
Speaker 4: a result of a violent assault where she was stabbed
Speaker 4: multiple times after being ambushed in the street. The coroner
Speaker 4: found that the plaintiff in these proceedings was responsible for
Speaker 4: her death. That is a fact that cannot be ignored.
Speaker 1: Those are the words of Doward Sibtaine. Sc sibtain is
Speaker 1: a silk engaged to defend Nationwide News Headley Thomas and
Speaker 1: Shanna Blackburn in the defamation action brought by Perros. In
Speaker 1: defamation cases, it's up to the plaintiff to prove that
Speaker 1: they suffered serious reputational damage by the publication they're complaining about,
Speaker 1: and if the material was published to a large number
Speaker 1: of people, say hundreds of thousands, courts in the past
Speaker 1: have inferred that the reputational harm must be serious. The
Speaker 1: Australian's lawyers are challenging this rule. They're saying the plaintiff
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily come to court with a good reputation and
Speaker 1: it's up to the plaintiff in this case, John Perros,
Speaker 1: to prove that the publication in this case, Episode thirteen
Speaker 1: seriously damaged the reputation they had. We've used a voice
Speaker 1: actor to bring you Dowd Sibtain's words.
Speaker 4: What is required is for this court to undertake a
Speaker 4: determination as to what was the plaintiff's pre episode thirteen
Speaker 4: reputation and his post episode thirteen reputation, and then having
Speaker 4: done that, to determine whether or not the harm occasion
Speaker 4: to his reputation was caused by the publication can concerned.
Speaker 1: Often in defamation cases, someone comes before the court to
Speaker 1: say they know the plaintiff, the person who's suing, and
Speaker 1: was shocked when they encountered the allegedly defamatory publication. They'll
Speaker 1: usually say the publication made them think less of the
Speaker 1: plaintiff and wonder whether they really had done something wrong.
Speaker 1: In this hearing, Justice Peter Applegarth wandered aloud whether he
Speaker 1: would be presented evidence from anyone along those lines. A
Speaker 1: person not a Reddit user like Nora Ladora or bard
Speaker 1: Girl twenty three, who says they considered Perros a good
Speaker 1: person before hearing episode thirteen and considered him a murderer afterwards.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to grapple with what the plaintiff says was
Speaker 2: the harm to his reputation, because traditionally we've had plaintiffs
Speaker 2: who come along and they say I was well regarded
Speaker 2: in my community, and then after the Courier Male published
Speaker 2: that article, people treated me finally in the street and
Speaker 2: invitations dried up, and I lost my job, and I
Speaker 2: was walking down the street and someone yelled out, you crook.
Speaker 4: I can assure your honor. There is none of that,
Speaker 4: not one word. What there is first losing his job.
Speaker 4: He lost his job around the time of episode one.
Speaker 4: There isn't a single person on a hearsay basis or
Speaker 4: otherwise who has said I heard episode thirteen and this
Speaker 4: is what I thought of him. It's somewhat curious the
Speaker 4: plaintiff is not giving evidence on this, but the evidence
Speaker 4: what there is, the scant evidence, requires such a tortured
Speaker 4: and fanciful approach to inferential reasoning that your honor could
Speaker 4: not conclude that he suffered serious harm.
Speaker 1: Peros's counsel, David Helvadjian, said he did tell the defense
Speaker 1: lawyers they would not be putting on any more evidence,
Speaker 1: but in fact, if the matter proceeds to trial, his
Speaker 1: side would potentially be adding more evidence of damage to
Speaker 1: Peros's reputation, and Helvagian said regardless, the Reddit posts were
Speaker 1: evidence of episode thirteen helping people make up their mind
Speaker 1: ends that John Perros was a killer.
Speaker 3: That evidence is rebuttal evidence to the idea that there's
Speaker 3: a settled view in the community that he is a
Speaker 3: violent killer, because otherwise, why else would they feel the
Speaker 3: need to post and share. The Reddit comments show it
Speaker 3: was episode thirteen that caused the harm.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us on the front. You can keep
Speaker 1: up with this story, listen to Shandy story yourself, and
Speaker 1: read all our outstanding journalism right now at the Australian
Speaker 1: dot com dot au