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