Why the man acquitted of killing Shandee Blackburn is suing Hedley Thomas
Lawyers for John Peros say The Australian’s ‘serious repute’ as a quality news outlet enhanced the ‘serious harm’ it caused in investigative podcast Shandee’s Story.
“100 per cent. Matter of fact. It was him.”
That’s Shannah Blackburn, the sister of Shandee Blackburn, who in 2013, at the age of 23, was murdered in a stabbing frenzy by someone who is still at large.
John Peros, the man Shannah Blackburn is accusing – has always denied killing Shandee, his ex-girlfriend.
Those words spoken by Shannah in Episode 13 of The Australian’s investigative podcast Shandee’s Story are now the subject of a defamation case.
John Peros is suing Nationwide News, the company that publishes The Australian – and Shannah herself, as well as our national chief correspondent Hedley Thomas, who reported and hosted Shandee’s Story.
This hearing is not the defamation trial – it’s a pre-trial hearing to determine whether or not John Peros was caused ‘serious harm’ by the publication of Episode 13 of Shandee’s Story, released in December 2021.
In the Queensland Supreme Court on Monday, counsel for John Peros, David Helvadjian, said: “Episode 13 publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations known to society.”
The murder of Shandee Blackburn
Shandee was violently murdered on 9 February, 2013 as she walked home from work after midnight.
The killer stabbed Shandee dozens of times, leaving her to die in a gutter.
If you’ve listened to Shandee’s Story, you’ll remember the harrowing audio of the person who discovered her body on a Mackay street calling Triple 0.
Asked if she is breathing, the panicked man simply says: “No, not at all.”
Who was charged with murder?
In 2014, Shandee’s ex-boyfriend John Peros, a talented local boxer and diesel fitter, was charged with Shandee’s murder.
He was found not guilty.
That verdict meant Peros was free to get on with his life.
But in 2019, a coroner conducted an inquest into Shandee’s death.
What did the coroner find?
The Coroner, David O’Donnell, compelled John Peros to give evidence after Peros 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 21 August 2020, the Coroner found Peros had, in fact, killed Shandee with a bladed instrument.
The coroner also said he believed the evidence of certain witnesses about John Peros, including that Peros had said to friends phrases like this about Shandee: “I f…ing hate that c…,” “She would be better off dead,” and “I hate her and I would love to stab the c….”
The coroner also found that a white ute seen on CCTV near the scene of Shandee’s death, at approximately the time of her death, was in fact John Peros’ 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 Shandee, he was not charged again – because Peros had already been acquitted. The legal principle of double jeopardy means you can’t be tried for the same offence 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 2022, he was found guilty of an assault at a BHP mine site. Peros was fined $2000 and granted a spent conviction.
In court on Monday, John Peros’ lawyer argued his reputation was caused serious harm by Episode 13 of Shandee’s Story.
We’ve used voice actors throughout this episode to recreate the words spoken in court.
David Helvadjian: “As your Honour 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 Helvadjian is saying that if this had been published elsewhere, it might not have caused the same level of harm.
Peros says The Australian has ‘serious repute’
David Helvadjian: “Your Honour 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 there’s plenty of outstanding journalists – and great journalism – in tabloid papers. Anyway, back to David Helvadjian.
David Helvadjian: “Secondly, you ought to be aware of the name Hedley Thomas and that he is a journalist who not only led the Shandee’s Story podcast, but he’s also the second defendant.”
Judge says he met Hedley Thomas
At this point the judge weighed in. This is a voice actor reading Justice Peter Applegarth’s words.
Justice Peter Applegarth: “I made a disclosure before hearing back in April that I met Mr. Thomas professionally many years ago. But I haven’t seen him in person or spoken to him for 16 years.”
David Helvadjian: “In that time period, he has become a brand name in true crime podcasts.”
Justice Peter Applegarth: “He’ll forgive me if I haven’t listened to his podcasts. He also touched up some of my clients at the public hospital inquiry. So there’s the balance there.”
That’s a reference to a commission of inquiry in 2005, which examined how a rogue surgeon, Jayant Patel, became known as Dr Death while working in Queensland hospitals. The inquiry arose partly out of Hedley’s investigative journalism for another paper owned by our company – The Courier-Mail. That’s a tabloid, by the way.
Peter Applegarth was a barrister in those days, and appeared before the Public Hospitals Inquiry – part of his long Queensland career in civil law, specialising in defamation.
David Helvadjian: “As of today, approximately 380,000 people across Australia have heard the imputation. Episode 13 had a far greater reach across Australia than the reporting of the coroner’s finding.”
Podcast’s popularity increased ‘harm’
And that’s where the real case begins.
Helvadjian, on behalf of Peros, says even though the Coroner in 2020 found John Peros killed Shandee Blackburn, his reputation was largely unharmed until Hedley Thomas and Shandee’s Story came along in 2021.
David Helvadjian: “The other inference clearly, is a podcast such as this would not have approximately 380,000 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.
Justice Peter Applegarth: 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?”
David Helvadjian: “Yes. That’s a very good point.”
Peros cites Reddit posts as evidence
Bardgirl23: “Just listened to this. Her ex absolutely did it.”
That’s a Reddit user with the handle Bardgirl23, commenting in early 2022 – shortly after the public release of Episode 13 of the Australian’s podcast Shandee’s Story.
Someone called Blonde_arrbuckle agrees.
Blonde_arrbuckle: “100 per cent he did.”
And another user, Noraludora, says: “I’m listening now – and feel it is so clear that it was the ex! The crime was personal and John was abusive to Shandee. It’s crazy he was acquitted.”
These posts are part of the evidence from John Peros’ lawyers in his claim episode 13 of Shandee’s Story caused serious harm to his reputation.
What is The Australian’s defence?
You’ve already heard Peros’ case. This is what lawyers for the other side say.
Dauid Sibtain: “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 Dauid Sibtain, SC. He’s a silk engaged to defend Nationwide News, Hedley Thomas and Shannah Blackburn in the defamation case brought by John Peros.
In defamation cases, it’s up to the plaintiff to prove that they suffered serious reputational damage by the publication. 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 Peros to prove that the publication – in this case episode 13 – seriously damaged the reputation they had.
We’ve used a voice actor to bring you Dauid Sibtain’s words.
Dauid Sibtain: “What is required is for this court to undertake a determination as to what was the plaintiff’s pre-episode 13 reputation and his post episode-13 reputation. And then having done that to determine whether or not the harm occasioned to his reputation was caused by the publication concerned.”
Judge asks about witnesses to ‘serious harm’
Often in defamation cases, someone comes before the court to say they know the plaintiff, the person who’s suing, and were 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 wondered aloud whether he would be presented evidence from anyone along those lines – a person, not a Reddit user like Noraludora or Bardgirl23 – who says they considered Peros a good person before hearing episode 13, and considered him a murderer afterwards.
Justice Peter Applegarth: “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 regarded my community and then after the Courier-Mail published that article people treated me funnily 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’!”
Dauid Sibtain: “I can assure Your Honour there is none of that. Not one word. What there is – first, losing his job. He lost his job around the time of episode 1.
“There isn’t a single person – on a hearsay basis or otherwise – who has said ‘I heard episode 13 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 Honour could not conclude that he suffered serious harm.”
Peros’ counsel, David Helvadjian, said he did tell the defence 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’ reputation.
And Helvadjian said regardless – the Reddit posts were evidence of Episode 13 helping people make up their minds that John Peros was a killer.
David Helvadjian: “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?”
That is evidence of actual serious harm. The reddit comments show it was Episode 13 that caused the harm.
John Peros has always denied any wrongdoing.
This is an edited transcript of The Australian’s daily news podcast, The Front. Search ‘The Front’ wherever you listen.
More Coverage
More undergraduates signing up for teaching: Labor
The federal government has released new data showing more undergraduates are applying to become school teachers than in previous years, as it works to tackle the nation’s crippling teacher shortage.
‘Who will fight for nation?’: ex-army chief’s alarm
Peter Leahy has warned a decline in national pride is at the heart of the Australian Defence Force’s personnel crisis.