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. His What's
Speaker 1: on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, August twenty eight.
Speaker 1: Two hundred and seventy thousand new international students will be
Speaker 1: allowed to study in Australia from next year. That's after
Speaker 1: a government overhaul of its attempt to cut overall migration numbers.
Speaker 1: Thousands of construction workers marched in rallies across the country
Speaker 1: on Tuesday. They're protesting the appointment of administrators to the
Speaker 1: underfire CFMU and voicing their support for ousted leader John Sitka.
Speaker 1: A Queensland Supreme Court judge has dismissed defamation action brought
Speaker 1: against The Australian over our podcast Shandy Story. Justice Peter
Speaker 1: Applegarth said John Perros didn't demonstrate he'd been seriously harmed
Speaker 1: by the podcast. Perros has always denied any wrongdoing. That's
Speaker 1: today's episode. One of the biggest true crime podcasts in
Speaker 1: recent years is Shandy's Story. The Australian's investigation into the
Speaker 1: brutal twenty thirteen murder of a young woman, Shandy Blackburn.
Speaker 1: The podcast created by our national Chief correspondent Hedley Thomas,
Speaker 1: sparked two commissions of inquiry into how Queensland's forensic DNA
Speaker 1: laboratory was totally failing victims of crime. But Shandy's story
Speaker 1: also triggered a defamation case brought by Shandy's ex boyfriend,
Speaker 1: John Perros. Perros sued the Australian's parent company Wide News,
Speaker 1: Heedley Thomas, and Shandy's sister, Shanna Blackburn, and on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: the Queensland Supreme Court dismissed Perros's case.
Speaker 2: I was enormously relieved, Claire, and I know that Vicky
Speaker 2: Blackburn and Shanna Blackburn, the mother and sister of Shandy,
Speaker 2: were also extremely relieved. I spoke to Vicky very soon
Speaker 2: after we got the news and she was elated, and
Speaker 2: then I spoke to Shanna and she was similarly very happy.
Speaker 2: They've been through an enormous amount of grief and stress
Speaker 2: and then having the person whom they believe murdered their
Speaker 2: daughter and sister suing them for defamation was a very
Speaker 2: difficult pill to swallow, and hopefully this finding by Justice
Speaker 2: Applegarth will make a significant difference.
Speaker 1: He is a voice actor reading the words spoken in
Speaker 1: court by Justice Peter Applegarth.
Speaker 3: The proceeding is dismissed.
Speaker 1: The judge found John Perross had not meant a crucial
Speaker 1: test for the case to proceed to a trial.
Speaker 3: The plaintiff has not discharged his burden of proof that
Speaker 3: Episode thirteen caused serious harm to his reputation.
Speaker 1: This is not a finding about who killed Shandy Blackburn.
Speaker 1: Justice Applegrath makes no comment on that. It's important to
Speaker 1: note that John Perros was acquitted by a jury of
Speaker 1: murdering Shandy. He has always denied any wrongdoing and it's
Speaker 1: within his rights to appeal this finding to a higher court.
Speaker 2: We've been in Court Claire for two years with this case.
Speaker 2: The cost has been enormous to the newspaper and of
Speaker 2: course the individuals who are involved, and I'm thinking particularly
Speaker 2: of Vicky and Shanna go through enormous worry, stress and concern.
Speaker 2: But they've been storn and The Australian has been very
Speaker 2: staunched too. We've had to rely on our lawyers significantly
Speaker 2: and they've done an amazing job. But this is the
Speaker 2: cost of this kind of journalism. It's very expensive. It
Speaker 2: doesn't come easily and we have to back ourselves and
Speaker 2: fight fight.
Speaker 1: Shandy Blackburn was left to die in a gutter in
Speaker 1: the North Queensland tropical city of Mackay in February twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: She'd been stabbed more than twenty times as she walked
Speaker 1: home from work. Shandy's ex boyfriend, John Perros, was charged
Speaker 1: with murder, but in twenty seventeen a jury acquitted him.
Speaker 1: Then the matter went to the coroner, who compelled Perros
Speaker 1: to give evidence and had access to evidence that was
Speaker 1: not presented to the jury that had acquitted Perros. That coroner,
Speaker 1: David O'Connell in twenty nineteen, found Peros did stab Shandy
Speaker 1: to death. Peros has always denied wrongdoing, and once acquitted,
Speaker 1: Perros could not be tried again unless fresh and compelling
Speaker 1: evidence came to light. In twenty twenty one, The Australian's
Speaker 1: National Chief correspondent Headley Thomas came along with his podcast
Speaker 1: Shandy Story. This Is Shandy sister Shanna Blackburn speaking to
Speaker 1: Headley Thomas in episode thirteen.
Speaker 4: Am I allowed to say that there's absolutely no doubt
Speaker 4: in our minds that John Perros is the one that
Speaker 4: killed Shandy Buckburn.
Speaker 1: One matter of fact, it was.
Speaker 2: Him, But how could you be so sure?
Speaker 4: Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at
Speaker 4: the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out
Speaker 4: before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been seen,
Speaker 4: and it's undeniable. When you have seen all that evidence
Speaker 4: together that there is any other person responsible for.
Speaker 2: This, then what you are saying is that he's got
Speaker 2: away with murder.
Speaker 4: I think it's a letdown in our justice system.
Speaker 1: I called Shanna Blackburn after Tuesday's judgment from Justice Peter Applegarth.
Speaker 5: Mum and I have never really properly been able to
Speaker 5: grieve Shandy because we've still been fighting for justice and
Speaker 5: everything that has come along with that since. So it's
Speaker 5: a step, but there's still so much more in that
Speaker 5: whole journey of justice for Shandy that is to come.
Speaker 1: I asked Shanna if she felt any hope that whoever
Speaker 1: killed Shandy would one day be brought to justice.
Speaker 5: There is always hope. Give me a bit emotional, because
Speaker 5: I never want to let go of the fact that
Speaker 5: there's hope, because they're always is. But I think after
Speaker 5: eleven years and everything that we've been dragged through with
Speaker 5: this process. It's hard to have faith injustice and in
Speaker 5: the system. And I think it's also a little bit
Speaker 5: of you don't want to get your hopes up. You
Speaker 5: don't want to ever think about that moment that whoever
Speaker 5: did this to her will actually one day be brought
Speaker 5: to justice for what they did. It would be a
Speaker 5: really amazing thing to happen. But it's very difficult to
Speaker 5: allow ourselves to go there because of even the thought
Speaker 5: of that, because it's just such a letdown from what
Speaker 5: we've already discovered and of the system and the processes
Speaker 5: and how role things can go.
Speaker 1: Peris claimed Episode thirteen of Shandy's Story defamed him by
Speaker 1: painting him as Shandy's murderer. The judge said John Peris's
Speaker 1: reputation had been damaged, but not by episode three.
Speaker 3: Had episode thirteen been a stand alone publication, then serious
Speaker 3: harm would be easily inferred from the gravity of the
Speaker 3: defamation and the extent of its publication. Episode thirteen was, not, however,
Speaker 3: a standalone publication. It was the thirteenth episode in a series,
Speaker 3: the first twelve episodes of which seriously injured the plaintiff's reputation.
Speaker 3: I find that listeners to the first twelve episodes were
Speaker 3: likely to conclude that the coroner's findings were right and
Speaker 3: that the plaintiff had violently attacked Miss Blackburn with a
Speaker 3: bladed instrument in a fast, frenzied and personal attack at
Speaker 3: around twelve fifteen am on nine February twenty thirteen. This
Speaker 3: conclusion is not based simply on the tendering of those
Speaker 3: earlier publications. It relies on the perceived authority of the
Speaker 3: persons whom he made those publications, and the form of
Speaker 3: the publications as being the product of investigative journalism that
Speaker 3: distinguishes the publication from a publication of rumors and bear allegations.
Speaker 1: The judge said Peros's reputation had already been damaged by
Speaker 1: a coroner's finding that Perros was Shandy's killer. Justice Applegarth
Speaker 1: said the coroner's ruling, which is still live today on
Speaker 1: the Queensland Courts website and articles about that finding, had
Speaker 1: also caused Peros's reputation serious harm long before Headley's podcast
Speaker 1: came along. At the center of this judgment is that
Speaker 1: issue of serious harm.
Speaker 6: The serious harm test is a new element of defamation
Speaker 6: law in Australia. It's only coming to effect in the
Speaker 6: last two years and it's something that's currently being decided
Speaker 6: by the courts, being figured out as new judgments have
Speaker 6: decided on the issue.
Speaker 1: This is John Paul Cashen, a defamation specialist and a
Speaker 1: partner at law firm Thomson Gear which advises the Australian Well.
Speaker 6: It's a new test that's become part of the law
Speaker 6: of defamation in Australia in the last few years and
Speaker 6: it's quite significant because what it does is switches the
Speaker 6: onus onto the plaintiff to prove that the publication has
Speaker 6: hurt their reputation. And what it's aimed at doing is
Speaker 6: weeding out trivial claims. We used to have an old
Speaker 6: law of triviality that was meant to weed out trivial
Speaker 6: claims and it wasn't very effective, so they put in
Speaker 6: a new one called the serious harm test, and it
Speaker 6: means that the plaintiff has to establish not just that
Speaker 6: it's damaged their reputation a little bit, but it must
Speaker 6: have done serious harm to their reputation. And it's starting
Speaker 6: to have an effect in knocking out some of these
Speaker 6: smaller types of claims you know, we used to have
Speaker 6: one star Google reviews being sued over and the courts
Speaker 6: were getting clogged up with these sorts of cases that
Speaker 6: were seen to be not the kind of cases that
Speaker 6: really should be litigated in our court system, and so
Speaker 6: the new harm test is aimed at weeding out those
Speaker 6: sorts of cases.
Speaker 1: During the hearing in the Queensland Supreme Court, a barrister
Speaker 1: for John Perros, David Helvagian, told the court Episode thirteen
Speaker 1: defamed Peros by suggesting the jury got it wrong and
Speaker 1: the coroner was right, that therefore he was a murderer.
Speaker 1: Our lawyers successfully argued that the judge should listen to
Speaker 1: episodes one to twelve of the podcast two to hear
Speaker 1: our journalism in all its context. We've used a voice
Speaker 1: actor to bring you David Helvagian's words from the hearing
Speaker 1: on this question of serious harm.
Speaker 7: Episodes thirteen publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations
Speaker 7: known to society, as your honor nose. The crime of
Speaker 7: murder in this state carries a life sentence. It is
Speaker 7: probably society's greatest crime. To label someone the murderer of
Speaker 7: another person is just of the highest seriousness However, to
Speaker 7: do so as part of an investigative true crime publication
Speaker 7: from a mainstream media company and from a journalist with
Speaker 7: a credible history in these matters is even more serious.
Speaker 7: Episode thirteen had a far greater reach across Australia than
Speaker 7: the reporting for coroner's finding. The other inference, clearly is
Speaker 7: a podcast such as this would not have approximately three
Speaker 7: hundred and eighty thousand downloads in Australia if it wasn't credible.
Speaker 1: The judge said when discussing costs that John Perros's case
Speaker 1: was not without merit, and he says that episodes one
Speaker 1: to twelve were where the serious harm to Peros's reputation occurred,
Speaker 1: as well as in other reporting. So did Perros sue
Speaker 1: on the wrong thing?
Speaker 6: Well, the judgment is quite complicated on that issue. But
Speaker 6: the judge didn't just look at episodes one to twelve.
Speaker 6: He also looked at the fact that the coroner several
Speaker 6: years earlier had found that he'd murdered Shandy, and then
Speaker 6: all of the associated publications around that. It was on
Speaker 6: the front page of the Courier Mail, there were news reports,
Speaker 6: and so what he found was it was episodes one
Speaker 6: to twelve, but also all of that other reporting. So
Speaker 6: I don't think we can say, based on this judgment
Speaker 6: that the result would have been any different if it'd
Speaker 6: sued over episodes one to twelve. We just don't really know,
Speaker 6: but it's certainly not the case that Perils would have
Speaker 6: won based on this judgment if he'd sued over episodes
Speaker 6: one to twelve.
Speaker 2: As well.
Speaker 1: You've already heard that episode thirteen contained Shanna Blackburn's candid
Speaker 1: views about who killed Shandy. Also in episode thirteen, Headley
Speaker 1: Thomas discussed with Shanner and Vicki Blackburn, Shandy's mother, evidence
Speaker 1: that the coroner considered which had not been put before
Speaker 1: the jury, Evidence like CCTV showing a car similar to
Speaker 1: John's car driving near the scene of Shandy's death that night,
Speaker 1: and phone records showing John Perils's mobile phone, which was
Speaker 1: rarely turned off, had been switched off on the nights
Speaker 1: before Shandy's murder. Here's Headley speaking to Vicki black Burn,
Speaker 1: Shandy's mother, in episode thirteen.
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 Shama and the cops knew it.
Speaker 9: He went for three nights, he did the same thing.
Speaker 9: He turned his phone off at the same time. He
Speaker 9: tried that for three nights and got successful.
Speaker 1: Here's what David Helvagian, counsel for John Perros, told the
Speaker 1: Queensland Supreme Court about that.
Speaker 10: Vicki Blackburn, the victim's mother, insinuates that he got lucky
Speaker 10: that night she was walking home from work the prior
Speaker 10: knight she got picked up by her boyfriend. The insinuation
Speaker 10: is he was stalking. Now that evidence wasn't before the jury,
Speaker 10: so it's another element that undercuts the acquittal in my submission.
Speaker 1: Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story
Speaker 1: would know well for forensic scientists, Kirsty Wright, who examined
Speaker 1: why the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John
Speaker 1: Perils's car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's
Speaker 1: work led to stunning revelations in the podcast that Queensland's
Speaker 1: entire DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told
Speaker 1: the court it all added up to a strong insinuation
Speaker 1: in the episode that the coroner was right and the
Speaker 1: jury was wrong.
Speaker 2: I really want to thank our lawyers who've done a
Speaker 2: great job John Paul Cashen who was the senior instructing solicitor,
Speaker 2: with our barristers Dward Subtaine and Paul Moreau. They really
Speaker 2: got on top of the issues and ensured that no
Speaker 2: stone was left unturned in the legal arguments. And Shandy
Speaker 2: Blackburn's murder remains unsolved and we can only hope that
Speaker 2: Queensland Police will just double their efforts to try to
Speaker 2: find her killer.
Speaker 1: Coming up the reddit posts, John Perros relied on We'll
Speaker 1: be back after this break. Just listen to this. Her
Speaker 1: ex absolutely did it. That's a Reddit user with the
Speaker 1: handle bard Girl twenty three. Commenting in early twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: shortly after the public release of episode thirteen of the
Speaker 1: Australians podcast Shandy Story, someone called Blonde Arbuckle agrees one
Speaker 1: hundred percent he did, and another user, Nora Ldora, says.
Speaker 11: I'm listening now and I feel it so clear that
Speaker 11: it was the X. The crime was so personal and
Speaker 11: John was abusive to Shandy. It is crazy that he
Speaker 11: was acquitted.
Speaker 1: Those posts are part of the evidence from John Perris's
Speaker 1: lawyers in his claim that Shandy's story caused serious harm
Speaker 1: to his reputation. Here's what Justice Applegarth said about those
Speaker 1: Reddit posts.
Speaker 3: The reddit posts do not suggest that episode thirteen changed
Speaker 3: their minds from having no opinion as to who the
Speaker 3: killer was or believing that someone else was the person responsible,
Speaker 3: to having an absolute or one hundred percent belief that
Speaker 3: the plaintiff was responsible. One might reasonably infer that episode
Speaker 3: thirteen contributed to each of the three Reddit commentators being
Speaker 3: convinced that the plaintiff was the killer, for example one
Speaker 3: hundred percent he did. However, it is also reasonable to
Speaker 3: infer that those listeners were at least fairly convinced of
Speaker 3: the plaintiff's responsibility or strongly believed that he was responsible
Speaker 3: for the killing before they listened to episode thirteen. Also said,
Speaker 3: the proposition that a podcast episode that accuses a person
Speaker 3: of murder and that is heard by a few hundred
Speaker 3: thousand listeners does not cause serious harm to reputation is confronting.
Speaker 3: The causation issue depends, however, on all the circumstances. For example,
Speaker 3: if the claimant was a notorious murderer at the time
Speaker 3: the episode was published, serious harm would not be inferred
Speaker 3: some compelling, direct evidence of actual harm to reputation that
Speaker 3: amounted to serious harm would be required.
Speaker 1: And the judge said Perros's barristers said in their submissions
Speaker 1: that Peris had a reputation as a friendly, hard working,
Speaker 1: talented boxer, but that they didn't present any evidence or
Speaker 1: witnesses on this.
Speaker 3: None of the plaintiff's friends, work, colleagues, acquaintances, or family
Speaker 3: members have said a single thing about the effect that
Speaker 3: episode thirteen had upon their estimation of the plaintiff or
Speaker 3: what their estimation of him was immediately before listening to
Speaker 3: episode thirteen.
Speaker 1: Justice Applegarth concluded that by the.
Speaker 3: Time episode thirteen was first published, the plaintiff had a
Speaker 3: damaged reputation in the relevant sector. Among listeners to the podcast,
Speaker 3: he would have been viewed by listeners to be the
Speaker 3: person who killed Miss Blackburn. They would not simply have
Speaker 3: known him to be the person who a coroner found
Speaker 3: to be Miss Blackburn's killer. They would have formed the view,
Speaker 3: based on the evidence and arguments placed before them in
Speaker 3: the series, that the coroner's finding was correct.
Speaker 1: You can listen to Shandy's story now wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts.