August 27, 2024 • 19 mins
In this episode of our daily news podcast, a QLD Supreme Court judge dismisses the defamation action brought against The Australian by the man acquitted of killing Shandee Blackburn.
Find out more about The Front podcast here. You can read about this story and more on The Australian's website or on The Australian’s app.
This episode of The Front is presented by Claire Harvey, produced by Kristen Amiet and edited by Tiffany Dimmack. The multimedia editor is Lia Tsamoglou and original music is composed by Jasper Leak.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker
every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play
the news from the Australian. From the Australian. His What's
on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, August twenty eight.
(00:29):
Two hundred and seventy thousand new international students will be
allowed to study in Australia from next year. That's after
a government overhaul of its attempt to cut overall migration numbers.
Thousands of construction workers marched in rallies across the country
on Tuesday. They're protesting the appointment of administrators to the
(00:50):
underfire CFMU and voicing their support for ousted leader John Sitka.
A Queensland Supreme Court judge has dismissed defamation action brought
against The Australian over our podcast Shandy Story. Justice Peter
(01:11):
Applegarth said John Perros didn't demonstrate he'd been seriously harmed
by the podcast. Perros has always denied any wrongdoing. That's
today's episode. One of the biggest true crime podcasts in
recent years is Shandy's Story. The Australian's investigation into the
(01:32):
brutal twenty thirteen murder of a young woman, Shandy Blackburn.
The podcast created by our national Chief correspondent Hedley Thomas,
sparked two commissions of inquiry into how Queensland's forensic DNA
laboratory was totally failing victims of crime. But Shandy's story
also triggered a defamation case brought by Shandy's ex boyfriend,
(01:56):
John Perros. Perros sued the Australian's parent company Wide News,
Heedley Thomas, and Shandy's sister, Shanna Blackburn, and on Tuesday,
the Queensland Supreme Court dismissed Perros's case.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I was enormously relieved, Claire, and I know that Vicky
Blackburn and Shanna Blackburn, the mother and sister of Shandy,
were also extremely relieved. I spoke to Vicky very soon
after we got the news and she was elated, and
then I spoke to Shanna and she was similarly very happy.
(02:31):
They've been through an enormous amount of grief and stress
and then having the person whom they believe murdered their
daughter and sister suing them for defamation was a very
difficult pill to swallow, and hopefully this finding by Justice
(02:52):
Applegarth will make a significant difference.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
He is a voice actor reading the words spoken in
court by Justice Peter Applegarth.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
The proceeding is dismissed.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
The judge found John Perross had not meant a crucial
test for the case to proceed to a trial.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
The plaintiff has not discharged his burden of proof that
Episode thirteen caused serious harm to his reputation.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
This is not a finding about who killed Shandy Blackburn.
Justice Applegrath makes no comment on that. It's important to
note that John Perros was acquitted by a jury of
murdering Shandy. He has always denied any wrongdoing and it's
within his rights to appeal this finding to a higher court.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
We've been in Court Claire for two years with this case.
The cost has been enormous to the newspaper and of
course the individuals who are involved, and I'm thinking particularly
of Vicky and Shanna go through enormous worry, stress and concern.
But they've been storn and The Australian has been very
(04:02):
staunched too. We've had to rely on our lawyers significantly
and they've done an amazing job. But this is the
cost of this kind of journalism. It's very expensive. It
doesn't come easily and we have to back ourselves and
fight fight.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Shandy Blackburn was left to die in a gutter in
the North Queensland tropical city of Mackay in February twenty thirteen.
She'd been stabbed more than twenty times as she walked
home from work. Shandy's ex boyfriend, John Perros, was charged
with murder, but in twenty seventeen a jury acquitted him.
(04:47):
Then the matter went to the coroner, who compelled Perros
to give evidence and had access to evidence that was
not presented to the jury that had acquitted Perros. That coroner,
David O'Connell in twenty nineteen, found Peros did stab Shandy
to death. Peros has always denied wrongdoing, and once acquitted,
(05:07):
Perros could not be tried again unless fresh and compelling
evidence came to light. In twenty twenty one, The Australian's
National Chief correspondent Headley Thomas came along with his podcast
Shandy Story. This Is Shandy sister Shanna Blackburn speaking to
Headley Thomas in episode thirteen.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Am I allowed to say that there's absolutely no doubt
in our minds that John Perros is the one that
killed Shandy Buckburn. One matter of fact, it was.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Him, But how could you be so sure?
Speaker 4 (05:45):
Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at
the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out
before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been seen,
and it's undeniable. When you have seen all that evidence
together that there is any other person responsible for.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
This, then what you are saying is that he's got
away with murder.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
I think it's a letdown in our justice system.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
I called Shanna Blackburn after Tuesday's judgment from Justice Peter Applegarth.
Speaker 5 (06:23):
Mum and I have never really properly been able to
grieve Shandy because we've still been fighting for justice and
everything that has come along with that since. So it's
a step, but there's still so much more in that
whole journey of justice for Shandy that is to come.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
I asked Shanna if she felt any hope that whoever
killed Shandy would one day be brought to justice.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
There is always hope. Give me a bit emotional, because
I never want to let go of the fact that
there's hope, because they're always is. But I think after
eleven years and everything that we've been dragged through with
this process. It's hard to have faith injustice and in
(07:10):
the system. And I think it's also a little bit
of you don't want to get your hopes up. You
don't want to ever think about that moment that whoever
did this to her will actually one day be brought
to justice for what they did. It would be a
really amazing thing to happen. But it's very difficult to
allow ourselves to go there because of even the thought
(07:32):
of that, because it's just such a letdown from what
we've already discovered and of the system and the processes
and how role things can go.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Peris claimed Episode thirteen of Shandy's Story defamed him by
painting him as Shandy's murderer. The judge said John Peris's
reputation had been damaged, but not by episode three.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Had episode thirteen been a stand alone publication, then serious
harm would be easily inferred from the gravity of the
defamation and the extent of its publication. Episode thirteen was, not, however,
a standalone publication. It was the thirteenth episode in a series,
(08:21):
the first twelve episodes of which seriously injured the plaintiff's reputation.
I find that listeners to the first twelve episodes were
likely to conclude that the coroner's findings were right and
that the plaintiff had violently attacked Miss Blackburn with a
bladed instrument in a fast, frenzied and personal attack at
(08:44):
around twelve fifteen am on nine February twenty thirteen. This
conclusion is not based simply on the tendering of those
earlier publications. It relies on the perceived authority of the
persons whom he made those publications, and the form of
the publications as being the product of investigative journalism that
(09:07):
distinguishes the publication from a publication of rumors and bear allegations.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
The judge said Peros's reputation had already been damaged by
a coroner's finding that Perros was Shandy's killer. Justice Applegarth
said the coroner's ruling, which is still live today on
the Queensland Courts website and articles about that finding, had
also caused Peros's reputation serious harm long before Headley's podcast
(09:36):
came along. At the center of this judgment is that
issue of serious harm.
Speaker 6 (09:42):
The serious harm test is a new element of defamation
law in Australia. It's only coming to effect in the
last two years and it's something that's currently being decided
by the courts, being figured out as new judgments have
decided on the issue.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
This is John Paul Cashen, a defamation specialist and a
partner at law firm Thomson Gear which advises the Australian Well.
Speaker 6 (10:05):
It's a new test that's become part of the law
of defamation in Australia in the last few years and
it's quite significant because what it does is switches the
onus onto the plaintiff to prove that the publication has
hurt their reputation. And what it's aimed at doing is
weeding out trivial claims. We used to have an old
law of triviality that was meant to weed out trivial
(10:28):
claims and it wasn't very effective, so they put in
a new one called the serious harm test, and it
means that the plaintiff has to establish not just that
it's damaged their reputation a little bit, but it must
have done serious harm to their reputation. And it's starting
to have an effect in knocking out some of these
smaller types of claims you know, we used to have
one star Google reviews being sued over and the courts
(10:51):
were getting clogged up with these sorts of cases that
were seen to be not the kind of cases that
really should be litigated in our court system, and so
the new harm test is aimed at weeding out those
sorts of cases.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
During the hearing in the Queensland Supreme Court, a barrister
for John Perros, David Helvagian, told the court Episode thirteen
defamed Peros by suggesting the jury got it wrong and
the coroner was right, that therefore he was a murderer.
Our lawyers successfully argued that the judge should listen to
episodes one to twelve of the podcast two to hear
our journalism in all its context. We've used a voice
(11:28):
actor to bring you David Helvagian's words from the hearing
on this question of serious harm.
Speaker 7 (11:34):
Episodes thirteen publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations
known to society, as your honor nose. The crime of
murder in this state carries a life sentence. It is
probably society's greatest crime. To label someone the murderer of
another person is just of the highest seriousness However, to
(11:55):
do so as part of an investigative true crime publication
from a mainstream media company and from a journalist with
a credible history in these matters is even more serious.
Episode thirteen had a far greater reach across Australia than
the reporting for coroner's finding. The other inference, clearly is
(12:18):
a podcast such as this would not have approximately three
hundred and eighty thousand downloads in Australia if it wasn't credible.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
The judge said when discussing costs that John Perros's case
was not without merit, and he says that episodes one
to twelve were where the serious harm to Peros's reputation occurred,
as well as in other reporting. So did Perros sue
on the wrong thing?
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Well, the judgment is quite complicated on that issue. But
the judge didn't just look at episodes one to twelve.
He also looked at the fact that the coroner several
years earlier had found that he'd murdered Shandy, and then
all of the associated publications around that. It was on
the front page of the Courier Mail, there were news reports,
and so what he found was it was episodes one
(13:05):
to twelve, but also all of that other reporting. So
I don't think we can say, based on this judgment
that the result would have been any different if it'd
sued over episodes one to twelve. We just don't really know,
but it's certainly not the case that Perils would have
won based on this judgment if he'd sued over episodes
one to twelve.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
As well.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
You've already heard that episode thirteen contained Shanna Blackburn's candid
views about who killed Shandy. Also in episode thirteen, Headley
Thomas discussed with Shanner and Vicki Blackburn, Shandy's mother, evidence
that the coroner considered which had not been put before
the jury, Evidence like CCTV showing a car similar to
John's car driving near the scene of Shandy's death that night,
(13:49):
and phone records showing John Perils's mobile phone, which was
rarely turned off, had been switched off on the nights
before Shandy's murder. Here's Headley speaking to Vicki black Burn,
Shandy's mother, in episode thirteen.
Speaker 8 (14:03):
Now, the jurors in John's murder trial didn't hear anything
about John's mobile phone usage and that inactivity, but Vicky
and Shama and the cops knew it.
Speaker 9 (14:15):
He went for three nights, he did the same thing.
He turned his phone off at the same time. He
tried that for three nights and got successful.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Here's what David Helvagian, counsel for John Perros, told the
Queensland Supreme Court about that.
Speaker 10 (14:33):
Vicki Blackburn, the victim's mother, insinuates that he got lucky
that night she was walking home from work the prior
knight she got picked up by her boyfriend. The insinuation
is he was stalking. Now that evidence wasn't before the jury,
so it's another element that undercuts the acquittal in my submission.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story
would know well for forensic scientists, Kirsty Wright, who examined
why the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John
Perils's car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's
work led to stunning revelations in the podcast the Queensland's
(15:15):
entire DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told
the court. It all added up to a strong insinuation
in the episode that the coroner was right and the
jury was wrong.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
I really want to thank our lawyers who've done a
great job John Paul Cashen who was the senior instructing solicitor,
with our barristers Dward Subtaine and Paul Moreau. They really
got on top of the issues and ensured that no
stone was left unturned in the legal arguments. And Shandy
Blackburn's murder remains unsolved and we can only hope that
(15:53):
Queensland Police will just double their efforts to try to
find her killer.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Coming up the reddit posts, John Perros relied on We'll
be back after this break.
Speaker 5 (16:23):
Just listen to this.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Her ex absolutely did it. That's a Reddit user with
the handle bard Girl twenty three. Commenting in early twenty
twenty two, shortly after the public release of episode thirteen
of the Australians podcast Shandy Story, someone called Blonde Arbuckle agrees.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
One hundred percent he did.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
And another user, Nora Ldora, says.
Speaker 11 (16:47):
I'm listening now and I feel it so clear that
it was the X. The crime was so personal and
John was abusive to Shandy. It is crazy that he
was acquitted.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Those posts are part of the evidence from John Perris's
lawyers in his claim that Shandy's story caused serious harm
to his reputation. Here's what Justice Applegarth said about those
Reddit posts.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
The reddit posts do not suggest that episode thirteen changed
their minds from having no opinion as to who the
killer was or believing that someone else was the person responsible,
to having an absolute or one hundred percent belief that
the plaintiff was responsible. One might reasonably infer that episode
(17:31):
thirteen contributed to each of the three Reddit commentators being
convinced that the plaintiff was the killer, for example one
hundred percent he did. However, it is also reasonable to
infer that those listeners were at least fairly convinced of
the plaintiff's responsibility or strongly believed that he was responsible
(17:54):
for the killing before they listened to episode thirteen.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Garth also said the proposition.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
That a podcast episode that accuses a person of murder
and that is heard by a few hundred thousand listeners
does not cause serious harm to reputation is confronting. The
causation issue depends, however, on all the circumstances. For example,
if the claimant was a notorious murderer at the time
(18:24):
the episode was published, serious harm would not be inferred.
Some compelling, direct evidence of actual harm to reputation that
amounted to serious harm would be required.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
And the judge said Perros's barristers said in their submissions
that Peris had a reputation as a friendly, hard working,
talented boxer, but that they didn't present any evidence or
witnesses on this.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
None of the plaintiff's friends, work, colleagues, acquaintances, or family
members have said a single thing about the effect that
episode thirteen had upon their estimation of the plaintiff or
what their estimation of him was immediately before listening to
episode thirteen.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Justice Applegarth concluded that by the.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Time episode thirteen was first published, the plaintiff had a
damaged reputation in the relevant sector. Among listeners to the podcast,
he would have been viewed by listeners to be the
person who killed Miss Blackburn. They would not simply have
known him to be the person who a coroner found
to be Miss Blackburn's killer. They would have formed the view,
(19:34):
based on the evidence and arguments placed before them in
the series, that the coroner's finding was correct.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
You can listen to Shandy's story now wherever you get
your podcasts.
You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker
every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play
the news from the Australian. From the Australian. His What's
on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, August twenty eight.
(00:29):
Two hundred and seventy thousand new international students will be
allowed to study in Australia from next year. That's after
a government overhaul of its attempt to cut overall migration numbers.
Thousands of construction workers marched in rallies across the country
on Tuesday. They're protesting the appointment of administrators to the
(00:50):
underfire CFMU and voicing their support for ousted leader John Sitka.
A Queensland Supreme Court judge has dismissed defamation action brought
against The Australian over our podcast Shandy Story. Justice Peter
(01:11):
Applegarth said John Perros didn't demonstrate he'd been seriously harmed
by the podcast. Perros has always denied any wrongdoing. That's
today's episode. One of the biggest true crime podcasts in
recent years is Shandy's Story. The Australian's investigation into the
(01:32):
brutal twenty thirteen murder of a young woman, Shandy Blackburn.
The podcast created by our national Chief correspondent Hedley Thomas,
sparked two commissions of inquiry into how Queensland's forensic DNA
laboratory was totally failing victims of crime. But Shandy's story
also triggered a defamation case brought by Shandy's ex boyfriend,
(01:56):
John Perros. Perros sued the Australian's parent company Wide News,
Heedley Thomas, and Shandy's sister, Shanna Blackburn, and on Tuesday,
the Queensland Supreme Court dismissed Perros's case.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I was enormously relieved, Claire, and I know that Vicky
Blackburn and Shanna Blackburn, the mother and sister of Shandy,
were also extremely relieved. I spoke to Vicky very soon
after we got the news and she was elated, and
then I spoke to Shanna and she was similarly very happy.
(02:31):
They've been through an enormous amount of grief and stress
and then having the person whom they believe murdered their
daughter and sister suing them for defamation was a very
difficult pill to swallow, and hopefully this finding by Justice
(02:52):
Applegarth will make a significant difference.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
He is a voice actor reading the words spoken in
court by Justice Peter Applegarth.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
The proceeding is dismissed.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
The judge found John Perross had not meant a crucial
test for the case to proceed to a trial.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
The plaintiff has not discharged his burden of proof that
Episode thirteen caused serious harm to his reputation.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
This is not a finding about who killed Shandy Blackburn.
Justice Applegrath makes no comment on that. It's important to
note that John Perros was acquitted by a jury of
murdering Shandy. He has always denied any wrongdoing and it's
within his rights to appeal this finding to a higher court.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
We've been in Court Claire for two years with this case.
The cost has been enormous to the newspaper and of
course the individuals who are involved, and I'm thinking particularly
of Vicky and Shanna go through enormous worry, stress and concern.
But they've been storn and The Australian has been very
(04:02):
staunched too. We've had to rely on our lawyers significantly
and they've done an amazing job. But this is the
cost of this kind of journalism. It's very expensive. It
doesn't come easily and we have to back ourselves and
fight fight.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Shandy Blackburn was left to die in a gutter in
the North Queensland tropical city of Mackay in February twenty thirteen.
She'd been stabbed more than twenty times as she walked
home from work. Shandy's ex boyfriend, John Perros, was charged
with murder, but in twenty seventeen a jury acquitted him.
(04:47):
Then the matter went to the coroner, who compelled Perros
to give evidence and had access to evidence that was
not presented to the jury that had acquitted Perros. That coroner,
David O'Connell in twenty nineteen, found Peros did stab Shandy
to death. Peros has always denied wrongdoing, and once acquitted,
(05:07):
Perros could not be tried again unless fresh and compelling
evidence came to light. In twenty twenty one, The Australian's
National Chief correspondent Headley Thomas came along with his podcast
Shandy Story. This Is Shandy sister Shanna Blackburn speaking to
Headley Thomas in episode thirteen.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Am I allowed to say that there's absolutely no doubt
in our minds that John Perros is the one that
killed Shandy Buckburn. One matter of fact, it was.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Him, But how could you be so sure?
Speaker 4 (05:45):
Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at
the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out
before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been seen,
and it's undeniable. When you have seen all that evidence
together that there is any other person responsible for.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
This, then what you are saying is that he's got
away with murder.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
I think it's a letdown in our justice system.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
I called Shanna Blackburn after Tuesday's judgment from Justice Peter Applegarth.
Speaker 5 (06:23):
Mum and I have never really properly been able to
grieve Shandy because we've still been fighting for justice and
everything that has come along with that since. So it's
a step, but there's still so much more in that
whole journey of justice for Shandy that is to come.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
I asked Shanna if she felt any hope that whoever
killed Shandy would one day be brought to justice.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
There is always hope. Give me a bit emotional, because
I never want to let go of the fact that
there's hope, because they're always is. But I think after
eleven years and everything that we've been dragged through with
this process. It's hard to have faith injustice and in
(07:10):
the system. And I think it's also a little bit
of you don't want to get your hopes up. You
don't want to ever think about that moment that whoever
did this to her will actually one day be brought
to justice for what they did. It would be a
really amazing thing to happen. But it's very difficult to
allow ourselves to go there because of even the thought
(07:32):
of that, because it's just such a letdown from what
we've already discovered and of the system and the processes
and how role things can go.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Peris claimed Episode thirteen of Shandy's Story defamed him by
painting him as Shandy's murderer. The judge said John Peris's
reputation had been damaged, but not by episode three.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Had episode thirteen been a stand alone publication, then serious
harm would be easily inferred from the gravity of the
defamation and the extent of its publication. Episode thirteen was, not, however,
a standalone publication. It was the thirteenth episode in a series,
(08:21):
the first twelve episodes of which seriously injured the plaintiff's reputation.
I find that listeners to the first twelve episodes were
likely to conclude that the coroner's findings were right and
that the plaintiff had violently attacked Miss Blackburn with a
bladed instrument in a fast, frenzied and personal attack at
(08:44):
around twelve fifteen am on nine February twenty thirteen. This
conclusion is not based simply on the tendering of those
earlier publications. It relies on the perceived authority of the
persons whom he made those publications, and the form of
the publications as being the product of investigative journalism that
(09:07):
distinguishes the publication from a publication of rumors and bear allegations.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
The judge said Peros's reputation had already been damaged by
a coroner's finding that Perros was Shandy's killer. Justice Applegarth
said the coroner's ruling, which is still live today on
the Queensland Courts website and articles about that finding, had
also caused Peros's reputation serious harm long before Headley's podcast
(09:36):
came along. At the center of this judgment is that
issue of serious harm.
Speaker 6 (09:42):
The serious harm test is a new element of defamation
law in Australia. It's only coming to effect in the
last two years and it's something that's currently being decided
by the courts, being figured out as new judgments have
decided on the issue.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
This is John Paul Cashen, a defamation specialist and a
partner at law firm Thomson Gear which advises the Australian Well.
Speaker 6 (10:05):
It's a new test that's become part of the law
of defamation in Australia in the last few years and
it's quite significant because what it does is switches the
onus onto the plaintiff to prove that the publication has
hurt their reputation. And what it's aimed at doing is
weeding out trivial claims. We used to have an old
law of triviality that was meant to weed out trivial
(10:28):
claims and it wasn't very effective, so they put in
a new one called the serious harm test, and it
means that the plaintiff has to establish not just that
it's damaged their reputation a little bit, but it must
have done serious harm to their reputation. And it's starting
to have an effect in knocking out some of these
smaller types of claims you know, we used to have
one star Google reviews being sued over and the courts
(10:51):
were getting clogged up with these sorts of cases that
were seen to be not the kind of cases that
really should be litigated in our court system, and so
the new harm test is aimed at weeding out those
sorts of cases.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
During the hearing in the Queensland Supreme Court, a barrister
for John Perros, David Helvagian, told the court Episode thirteen
defamed Peros by suggesting the jury got it wrong and
the coroner was right, that therefore he was a murderer.
Our lawyers successfully argued that the judge should listen to
episodes one to twelve of the podcast two to hear
our journalism in all its context. We've used a voice
(11:28):
actor to bring you David Helvagian's words from the hearing
on this question of serious harm.
Speaker 7 (11:34):
Episodes thirteen publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations
known to society, as your honor nose. The crime of
murder in this state carries a life sentence. It is
probably society's greatest crime. To label someone the murderer of
another person is just of the highest seriousness However, to
(11:55):
do so as part of an investigative true crime publication
from a mainstream media company and from a journalist with
a credible history in these matters is even more serious.
Episode thirteen had a far greater reach across Australia than
the reporting for coroner's finding. The other inference, clearly is
(12:18):
a podcast such as this would not have approximately three
hundred and eighty thousand downloads in Australia if it wasn't credible.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
The judge said when discussing costs that John Perros's case
was not without merit, and he says that episodes one
to twelve were where the serious harm to Peros's reputation occurred,
as well as in other reporting. So did Perros sue
on the wrong thing?
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Well, the judgment is quite complicated on that issue. But
the judge didn't just look at episodes one to twelve.
He also looked at the fact that the coroner several
years earlier had found that he'd murdered Shandy, and then
all of the associated publications around that. It was on
the front page of the Courier Mail, there were news reports,
and so what he found was it was episodes one
(13:05):
to twelve, but also all of that other reporting. So
I don't think we can say, based on this judgment
that the result would have been any different if it'd
sued over episodes one to twelve. We just don't really know,
but it's certainly not the case that Perils would have
won based on this judgment if he'd sued over episodes
one to twelve.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
As well.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
You've already heard that episode thirteen contained Shanna Blackburn's candid
views about who killed Shandy. Also in episode thirteen, Headley
Thomas discussed with Shanner and Vicki Blackburn, Shandy's mother, evidence
that the coroner considered which had not been put before
the jury, Evidence like CCTV showing a car similar to
John's car driving near the scene of Shandy's death that night,
(13:49):
and phone records showing John Perils's mobile phone, which was
rarely turned off, had been switched off on the nights
before Shandy's murder. Here's Headley speaking to Vicki black Burn,
Shandy's mother, in episode thirteen.
Speaker 8 (14:03):
Now, the jurors in John's murder trial didn't hear anything
about John's mobile phone usage and that inactivity, but Vicky
and Shama and the cops knew it.
Speaker 9 (14:15):
He went for three nights, he did the same thing.
He turned his phone off at the same time. He
tried that for three nights and got successful.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Here's what David Helvagian, counsel for John Perros, told the
Queensland Supreme Court about that.
Speaker 10 (14:33):
Vicki Blackburn, the victim's mother, insinuates that he got lucky
that night she was walking home from work the prior
knight she got picked up by her boyfriend. The insinuation
is he was stalking. Now that evidence wasn't before the jury,
so it's another element that undercuts the acquittal in my submission.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story
would know well for forensic scientists, Kirsty Wright, who examined
why the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John
Perils's car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's
work led to stunning revelations in the podcast the Queensland's
(15:15):
entire DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told
the court. It all added up to a strong insinuation
in the episode that the coroner was right and the
jury was wrong.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
I really want to thank our lawyers who've done a
great job John Paul Cashen who was the senior instructing solicitor,
with our barristers Dward Subtaine and Paul Moreau. They really
got on top of the issues and ensured that no
stone was left unturned in the legal arguments. And Shandy
Blackburn's murder remains unsolved and we can only hope that
(15:53):
Queensland Police will just double their efforts to try to
find her killer.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Coming up the reddit posts, John Perros relied on We'll
be back after this break.
Speaker 5 (16:23):
Just listen to this.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Her ex absolutely did it. That's a Reddit user with
the handle bard Girl twenty three. Commenting in early twenty
twenty two, shortly after the public release of episode thirteen
of the Australians podcast Shandy Story, someone called Blonde Arbuckle agrees.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
One hundred percent he did.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
And another user, Nora Ldora, says.
Speaker 11 (16:47):
I'm listening now and I feel it so clear that
it was the X. The crime was so personal and
John was abusive to Shandy. It is crazy that he
was acquitted.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Those posts are part of the evidence from John Perris's
lawyers in his claim that Shandy's story caused serious harm
to his reputation. Here's what Justice Applegarth said about those
Reddit posts.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
The reddit posts do not suggest that episode thirteen changed
their minds from having no opinion as to who the
killer was or believing that someone else was the person responsible,
to having an absolute or one hundred percent belief that
the plaintiff was responsible. One might reasonably infer that episode
(17:31):
thirteen contributed to each of the three Reddit commentators being
convinced that the plaintiff was the killer, for example one
hundred percent he did. However, it is also reasonable to
infer that those listeners were at least fairly convinced of
the plaintiff's responsibility or strongly believed that he was responsible
(17:54):
for the killing before they listened to episode thirteen.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Garth also said the proposition.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
That a podcast episode that accuses a person of murder
and that is heard by a few hundred thousand listeners
does not cause serious harm to reputation is confronting. The
causation issue depends, however, on all the circumstances. For example,
if the claimant was a notorious murderer at the time
(18:24):
the episode was published, serious harm would not be inferred.
Some compelling, direct evidence of actual harm to reputation that
amounted to serious harm would be required.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
And the judge said Perros's barristers said in their submissions
that Peris had a reputation as a friendly, hard working,
talented boxer, but that they didn't present any evidence or
witnesses on this.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
None of the plaintiff's friends, work, colleagues, acquaintances, or family
members have said a single thing about the effect that
episode thirteen had upon their estimation of the plaintiff or
what their estimation of him was immediately before listening to
episode thirteen.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Justice Applegarth concluded that by the.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Time episode thirteen was first published, the plaintiff had a
damaged reputation in the relevant sector. Among listeners to the podcast,
he would have been viewed by listeners to be the
person who killed Miss Blackburn. They would not simply have
known him to be the person who a coroner found
to be Miss Blackburn's killer. They would have formed the view,
(19:34):
based on the evidence and arguments placed before them in
the series, that the coroner's finding was correct.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
You can listen to Shandy's story now wherever you get
your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.