Latest / The Front / John Peros defamation case dismissed

Transcript

John Peros defamation case dismissed · The Front

0:06
Speaker 1: You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker
0:08
Speaker 1: every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play
0:12
Speaker 1: the news from the Australian. From the Australian. His What's
0:22
Speaker 1: on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, August twenty eight.
0:29
Speaker 1: Two hundred and seventy thousand new international students will be
0:32
Speaker 1: allowed to study in Australia from next year. That's after
0:35
Speaker 1: a government overhaul of its attempt to cut overall migration numbers.
0:43
Speaker 1: Thousands of construction workers marched in rallies across the country
0:46
Speaker 1: on Tuesday. They're protesting the appointment of administrators to the
0:50
Speaker 1: underfire CFMU and voicing their support for ousted leader John Sitka.
1:02
Speaker 1: A Queensland Supreme Court judge has dismissed defamation action brought
1:06
Speaker 1: against The Australian over our podcast Shandy Story. Justice Peter
1:11
Speaker 1: Applegarth said John Perros didn't demonstrate he'd been seriously harmed
1:16
Speaker 1: by the podcast. Perros has always denied any wrongdoing. That's
1:21
Speaker 1: today's episode. One of the biggest true crime podcasts in
1:28
Speaker 1: recent years is Shandy's Story. The Australian's investigation into the
1:32
Speaker 1: brutal twenty thirteen murder of a young woman, Shandy Blackburn.
1:37
Speaker 1: The podcast created by our national Chief correspondent Hedley Thomas,
1:41
Speaker 1: sparked two commissions of inquiry into how Queensland's forensic DNA
1:46
Speaker 1: laboratory was totally failing victims of crime. But Shandy's story
1:51
Speaker 1: also triggered a defamation case brought by Shandy's ex boyfriend,
1:56
Speaker 1: John Perros. Perros sued the Australian's parent company Wide News,
2:01
Speaker 1: Heedley Thomas, and Shandy's sister, Shanna Blackburn, and on Tuesday,
2:06
Speaker 1: the Queensland Supreme Court dismissed Perros's case.
2:10
Speaker 2: I was enormously relieved, Claire, and I know that Vicky
2:14
Speaker 2: Blackburn and Shanna Blackburn, the mother and sister of Shandy,
2:19
Speaker 2: were also extremely relieved. I spoke to Vicky very soon
2:23
Speaker 2: after we got the news and she was elated, and
2:27
Speaker 2: then I spoke to Shanna and she was similarly very happy.
2:31
Speaker 2: They've been through an enormous amount of grief and stress
2:36
Speaker 2: and then having the person whom they believe murdered their
2:41
Speaker 2: daughter and sister suing them for defamation was a very
2:46
Speaker 2: difficult pill to swallow, and hopefully this finding by Justice
2:52
Speaker 2: Applegarth will make a significant difference.
2:56
Speaker 1: He is a voice actor reading the words spoken in
2:59
Speaker 1: court by Justice Peter Applegarth.
3:02
Speaker 3: The proceeding is dismissed.
3:04
Speaker 1: The judge found John Perross had not meant a crucial
3:08
Speaker 1: test for the case to proceed to a trial.
3:11
Speaker 3: The plaintiff has not discharged his burden of proof that
3:15
Speaker 3: Episode thirteen caused serious harm to his reputation.
3:19
Speaker 1: This is not a finding about who killed Shandy Blackburn.
3:23
Speaker 1: Justice Applegrath makes no comment on that. It's important to
3:27
Speaker 1: note that John Perros was acquitted by a jury of
3:31
Speaker 1: murdering Shandy. He has always denied any wrongdoing and it's
3:36
Speaker 1: within his rights to appeal this finding to a higher court.
3:41
Speaker 2: We've been in Court Claire for two years with this case.
3:45
Speaker 2: The cost has been enormous to the newspaper and of
3:49
Speaker 2: course the individuals who are involved, and I'm thinking particularly
3:53
Speaker 2: of Vicky and Shanna go through enormous worry, stress and concern.
3:58
Speaker 2: But they've been storn and The Australian has been very
4:02
Speaker 2: staunched too. We've had to rely on our lawyers significantly
4:06
Speaker 2: and they've done an amazing job. But this is the
4:09
Speaker 2: cost of this kind of journalism. It's very expensive. It
4:13
Speaker 2: doesn't come easily and we have to back ourselves and
4:18
Speaker 2: fight fight.
4:24
Speaker 1: Shandy Blackburn was left to die in a gutter in
4:27
Speaker 1: the North Queensland tropical city of Mackay in February twenty thirteen.
4:32
Speaker 1: She'd been stabbed more than twenty times as she walked
4:36
Speaker 1: home from work. Shandy's ex boyfriend, John Perros, was charged
4:41
Speaker 1: with murder, but in twenty seventeen a jury acquitted him.
4:47
Speaker 1: Then the matter went to the coroner, who compelled Perros
4:49
Speaker 1: to give evidence and had access to evidence that was
4:52
Speaker 1: not presented to the jury that had acquitted Perros. That coroner,
4:57
Speaker 1: David O'Connell in twenty nineteen, found Peros did stab Shandy
5:01
Speaker 1: to death. Peros has always denied wrongdoing, and once acquitted,
5:07
Speaker 1: Perros could not be tried again unless fresh and compelling
5:11
Speaker 1: evidence came to light. In twenty twenty one, The Australian's
5:16
Speaker 1: National Chief correspondent Headley Thomas came along with his podcast
5:20
Speaker 1: Shandy Story. This Is Shandy sister Shanna Blackburn speaking to
5:26
Speaker 1: Headley Thomas in episode thirteen.
5:29
Speaker 4: Am I allowed to say that there's absolutely no doubt
5:33
Speaker 4: in our minds that John Perros is the one that
5:37
Speaker 4: killed Shandy Buckburn.
5:40
Speaker 1: One matter of fact, it was.
5:42
Speaker 2: Him, But how could you be so sure?
5:45
Speaker 4: Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at
5:48
Speaker 4: the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out
5:52
Speaker 4: before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been seen,
5:57
Speaker 4: and it's undeniable. When you have seen all that evidence
6:02
Speaker 4: together that there is any other person responsible for.
6:07
Speaker 2: This, then what you are saying is that he's got
6:11
Speaker 2: away with murder.
6:13
Speaker 4: I think it's a letdown in our justice system.
6:17
Speaker 1: I called Shanna Blackburn after Tuesday's judgment from Justice Peter Applegarth.
6:23
Speaker 5: Mum and I have never really properly been able to
6:25
Speaker 5: grieve Shandy because we've still been fighting for justice and
6:31
Speaker 5: everything that has come along with that since. So it's
6:35
Speaker 5: a step, but there's still so much more in that
6:38
Speaker 5: whole journey of justice for Shandy that is to come.
6:43
Speaker 1: I asked Shanna if she felt any hope that whoever
6:46
Speaker 1: killed Shandy would one day be brought to justice.
6:49
Speaker 5: There is always hope. Give me a bit emotional, because
6:52
Speaker 5: I never want to let go of the fact that
6:54
Speaker 5: there's hope, because they're always is. But I think after
6:58
Speaker 5: eleven years and everything that we've been dragged through with
7:04
Speaker 5: this process. It's hard to have faith injustice and in
7:10
Speaker 5: the system. And I think it's also a little bit
7:12
Speaker 5: of you don't want to get your hopes up. You
7:13
Speaker 5: don't want to ever think about that moment that whoever
7:17
Speaker 5: did this to her will actually one day be brought
7:21
Speaker 5: to justice for what they did. It would be a
7:24
Speaker 5: really amazing thing to happen. But it's very difficult to
7:29
Speaker 5: allow ourselves to go there because of even the thought
7:32
Speaker 5: of that, because it's just such a letdown from what
7:36
Speaker 5: we've already discovered and of the system and the processes
7:40
Speaker 5: and how role things can go.
7:48
Speaker 1: Peris claimed Episode thirteen of Shandy's Story defamed him by
7:52
Speaker 1: painting him as Shandy's murderer. The judge said John Peris's
7:56
Speaker 1: reputation had been damaged, but not by episode three.
8:01
Speaker 3: Had episode thirteen been a stand alone publication, then serious
8:06
Speaker 3: harm would be easily inferred from the gravity of the
8:09
Speaker 3: defamation and the extent of its publication. Episode thirteen was, not, however,
8:15
Speaker 3: a standalone publication. It was the thirteenth episode in a series,
8:21
Speaker 3: the first twelve episodes of which seriously injured the plaintiff's reputation.
8:27
Speaker 3: I find that listeners to the first twelve episodes were
8:31
Speaker 3: likely to conclude that the coroner's findings were right and
8:35
Speaker 3: that the plaintiff had violently attacked Miss Blackburn with a
8:38
Speaker 3: bladed instrument in a fast, frenzied and personal attack at
8:44
Speaker 3: around twelve fifteen am on nine February twenty thirteen. This
8:50
Speaker 3: conclusion is not based simply on the tendering of those
8:54
Speaker 3: earlier publications. It relies on the perceived authority of the
8:58
Speaker 3: persons whom he made those publications, and the form of
9:02
Speaker 3: the publications as being the product of investigative journalism that
9:07
Speaker 3: distinguishes the publication from a publication of rumors and bear allegations.
9:15
Speaker 1: The judge said Peros's reputation had already been damaged by
9:19
Speaker 1: a coroner's finding that Perros was Shandy's killer. Justice Applegarth
9:23
Speaker 1: said the coroner's ruling, which is still live today on
9:26
Speaker 1: the Queensland Courts website and articles about that finding, had
9:31
Speaker 1: also caused Peros's reputation serious harm long before Headley's podcast
9:36
Speaker 1: came along. At the center of this judgment is that
9:39
Speaker 1: issue of serious harm.
9:42
Speaker 6: The serious harm test is a new element of defamation
9:45
Speaker 6: law in Australia. It's only coming to effect in the
9:47
Speaker 6: last two years and it's something that's currently being decided
9:52
Speaker 6: by the courts, being figured out as new judgments have
9:55
Speaker 6: decided on the issue.
9:57
Speaker 1: This is John Paul Cashen, a defamation specialist and a
10:01
Speaker 1: partner at law firm Thomson Gear which advises the Australian Well.
10:05
Speaker 6: It's a new test that's become part of the law
10:08
Speaker 6: of defamation in Australia in the last few years and
10:12
Speaker 6: it's quite significant because what it does is switches the
10:15
Speaker 6: onus onto the plaintiff to prove that the publication has
10:19
Speaker 6: hurt their reputation. And what it's aimed at doing is
10:22
Speaker 6: weeding out trivial claims. We used to have an old
10:25
Speaker 6: law of triviality that was meant to weed out trivial
10:28
Speaker 6: claims and it wasn't very effective, so they put in
10:30
Speaker 6: a new one called the serious harm test, and it
10:33
Speaker 6: means that the plaintiff has to establish not just that
10:36
Speaker 6: it's damaged their reputation a little bit, but it must
10:39
Speaker 6: have done serious harm to their reputation. And it's starting
10:42
Speaker 6: to have an effect in knocking out some of these
10:45
Speaker 6: smaller types of claims you know, we used to have
10:48
Speaker 6: one star Google reviews being sued over and the courts
10:51
Speaker 6: were getting clogged up with these sorts of cases that
10:53
Speaker 6: were seen to be not the kind of cases that
10:56
Speaker 6: really should be litigated in our court system, and so
10:59
Speaker 6: the new harm test is aimed at weeding out those
11:01
Speaker 6: sorts of cases.
11:04
Speaker 1: During the hearing in the Queensland Supreme Court, a barrister
11:07
Speaker 1: for John Perros, David Helvagian, told the court Episode thirteen
11:10
Speaker 1: defamed Peros by suggesting the jury got it wrong and
11:14
Speaker 1: the coroner was right, that therefore he was a murderer.
11:17
Speaker 1: Our lawyers successfully argued that the judge should listen to
11:21
Speaker 1: episodes one to twelve of the podcast two to hear
11:24
Speaker 1: our journalism in all its context. We've used a voice
11:28
Speaker 1: actor to bring you David Helvagian's words from the hearing
11:31
Speaker 1: on this question of serious harm.
11:34
Speaker 7: Episodes thirteen publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations
11:38
Speaker 7: known to society, as your honor nose. The crime of
11:42
Speaker 7: murder in this state carries a life sentence. It is
11:46
Speaker 7: probably society's greatest crime. To label someone the murderer of
11:50
Speaker 7: another person is just of the highest seriousness However, to
11:55
Speaker 7: do so as part of an investigative true crime publication
11:59
Speaker 7: from a mainstream media company and from a journalist with
12:03
Speaker 7: a credible history in these matters is even more serious.
12:08
Speaker 7: Episode thirteen had a far greater reach across Australia than
12:12
Speaker 7: the reporting for coroner's finding. The other inference, clearly is
12:18
Speaker 7: a podcast such as this would not have approximately three
12:21
Speaker 7: hundred and eighty thousand downloads in Australia if it wasn't credible.
12:27
Speaker 1: The judge said when discussing costs that John Perros's case
12:30
Speaker 1: was not without merit, and he says that episodes one
12:33
Speaker 1: to twelve were where the serious harm to Peros's reputation occurred,
12:38
Speaker 1: as well as in other reporting. So did Perros sue
12:42
Speaker 1: on the wrong thing?
12:44
Speaker 6: Well, the judgment is quite complicated on that issue. But
12:47
Speaker 6: the judge didn't just look at episodes one to twelve.
12:50
Speaker 6: He also looked at the fact that the coroner several
12:53
Speaker 6: years earlier had found that he'd murdered Shandy, and then
12:57
Speaker 6: all of the associated publications around that. It was on
12:59
Speaker 6: the front page of the Courier Mail, there were news reports,
13:03
Speaker 6: and so what he found was it was episodes one
13:05
Speaker 6: to twelve, but also all of that other reporting. So
13:09
Speaker 6: I don't think we can say, based on this judgment
13:12
Speaker 6: that the result would have been any different if it'd
13:14
Speaker 6: sued over episodes one to twelve. We just don't really know,
13:17
Speaker 6: but it's certainly not the case that Perils would have
13:19
Speaker 6: won based on this judgment if he'd sued over episodes
13:22
Speaker 6: one to twelve.
13:23
Speaker 2: As well.
13:26
Speaker 1: You've already heard that episode thirteen contained Shanna Blackburn's candid
13:30
Speaker 1: views about who killed Shandy. Also in episode thirteen, Headley
13:34
Speaker 1: Thomas discussed with Shanner and Vicki Blackburn, Shandy's mother, evidence
13:38
Speaker 1: that the coroner considered which had not been put before
13:41
Speaker 1: the jury, Evidence like CCTV showing a car similar to
13:45
Speaker 1: John's car driving near the scene of Shandy's death that night,
13:49
Speaker 1: and phone records showing John Perils's mobile phone, which was
13:52
Speaker 1: rarely turned off, had been switched off on the nights
13:55
Speaker 1: before Shandy's murder. Here's Headley speaking to Vicki black Burn,
14:00
Speaker 1: Shandy's mother, in episode thirteen.
14:03
Speaker 8: Now, the jurors in John's murder trial didn't hear anything
14:06
Speaker 8: about John's mobile phone usage and that inactivity, but Vicky
14:12
Speaker 8: and Shama and the cops knew it.
14:15
Speaker 9: He went for three nights, he did the same thing.
14:20
Speaker 9: He turned his phone off at the same time. He
14:23
Speaker 9: tried that for three nights and got successful.
14:27
Speaker 1: Here's what David Helvagian, counsel for John Perros, told the
14:31
Speaker 1: Queensland Supreme Court about that.
14:33
Speaker 10: Vicki Blackburn, the victim's mother, insinuates that he got lucky
14:37
Speaker 10: that night she was walking home from work the prior
14:40
Speaker 10: knight she got picked up by her boyfriend. The insinuation
14:44
Speaker 10: is he was stalking. Now that evidence wasn't before the jury,
14:49
Speaker 10: so it's another element that undercuts the acquittal in my submission.
14:54
Speaker 1: Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story
14:58
Speaker 1: would know well for forensic scientists, Kirsty Wright, who examined
15:02
Speaker 1: why the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John
15:05
Speaker 1: Perils's car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's
15:11
Speaker 1: work led to stunning revelations in the podcast that Queensland's
15:15
Speaker 1: entire DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told
15:20
Speaker 1: the court it all added up to a strong insinuation
15:23
Speaker 1: in the episode that the coroner was right and the
15:26
Speaker 1: jury was wrong.
15:28
Speaker 2: I really want to thank our lawyers who've done a
15:30
Speaker 2: great job John Paul Cashen who was the senior instructing solicitor,
15:35
Speaker 2: with our barristers Dward Subtaine and Paul Moreau. They really
15:40
Speaker 2: got on top of the issues and ensured that no
15:43
Speaker 2: stone was left unturned in the legal arguments. And Shandy
15:47
Speaker 2: Blackburn's murder remains unsolved and we can only hope that
15:53
Speaker 2: Queensland Police will just double their efforts to try to
15:56
Speaker 2: find her killer.
16:02
Speaker 1: Coming up the reddit posts, John Perros relied on We'll
16:06
Speaker 1: be back after this break. Just listen to this. Her
16:24
Speaker 1: ex absolutely did it. That's a Reddit user with the
16:28
Speaker 1: handle bard Girl twenty three. Commenting in early twenty twenty two,
16:33
Speaker 1: shortly after the public release of episode thirteen of the
16:36
Speaker 1: Australians podcast Shandy Story, someone called Blonde Arbuckle agrees one
16:42
Speaker 1: hundred percent he did, and another user, Nora Ldora, says.
16:47
Speaker 11: I'm listening now and I feel it so clear that
16:49
Speaker 11: it was the X. The crime was so personal and
16:52
Speaker 11: John was abusive to Shandy. It is crazy that he
16:56
Speaker 11: was acquitted.
16:58
Speaker 1: Those posts are part of the evidence from John Perris's
17:01
Speaker 1: lawyers in his claim that Shandy's story caused serious harm
17:05
Speaker 1: to his reputation. Here's what Justice Applegarth said about those
17:09
Speaker 1: Reddit posts.
17:11
Speaker 3: The reddit posts do not suggest that episode thirteen changed
17:15
Speaker 3: their minds from having no opinion as to who the
17:18
Speaker 3: killer was or believing that someone else was the person responsible,
17:23
Speaker 3: to having an absolute or one hundred percent belief that
17:26
Speaker 3: the plaintiff was responsible. One might reasonably infer that episode
17:31
Speaker 3: thirteen contributed to each of the three Reddit commentators being
17:36
Speaker 3: convinced that the plaintiff was the killer, for example one
17:40
Speaker 3: hundred percent he did. However, it is also reasonable to
17:45
Speaker 3: infer that those listeners were at least fairly convinced of
17:49
Speaker 3: the plaintiff's responsibility or strongly believed that he was responsible
17:54
Speaker 3: for the killing before they listened to episode thirteen. Also said,
18:01
Speaker 3: the proposition that a podcast episode that accuses a person
18:05
Speaker 3: of murder and that is heard by a few hundred
18:08
Speaker 3: thousand listeners does not cause serious harm to reputation is confronting.
18:14
Speaker 3: The causation issue depends, however, on all the circumstances. For example,
18:19
Speaker 3: if the claimant was a notorious murderer at the time
18:24
Speaker 3: the episode was published, serious harm would not be inferred
18:29
Speaker 3: some compelling, direct evidence of actual harm to reputation that
18:34
Speaker 3: amounted to serious harm would be required.
18:38
Speaker 1: And the judge said Perros's barristers said in their submissions
18:41
Speaker 1: that Peris had a reputation as a friendly, hard working,
18:44
Speaker 1: talented boxer, but that they didn't present any evidence or
18:47
Speaker 1: witnesses on this.
18:49
Speaker 3: None of the plaintiff's friends, work, colleagues, acquaintances, or family
18:54
Speaker 3: members have said a single thing about the effect that
18:58
Speaker 3: episode thirteen had upon their estimation of the plaintiff or
19:03
Speaker 3: what their estimation of him was immediately before listening to
19:07
Speaker 3: episode thirteen.
19:09
Speaker 1: Justice Applegarth concluded that by the.
19:12
Speaker 3: Time episode thirteen was first published, the plaintiff had a
19:15
Speaker 3: damaged reputation in the relevant sector. Among listeners to the podcast,
19:21
Speaker 3: he would have been viewed by listeners to be the
19:23
Speaker 3: person who killed Miss Blackburn. They would not simply have
19:27
Speaker 3: known him to be the person who a coroner found
19:30
Speaker 3: to be Miss Blackburn's killer. They would have formed the view,
19:34
Speaker 3: based on the evidence and arguments placed before them in
19:38
Speaker 3: the series, that the coroner's finding was correct.
19:47
Speaker 1: You can listen to Shandy's story now wherever you get
19:49
Speaker 1: your podcasts.