Login
‘Mystery novel’ defence introduced in podcast defamation trial
Nationwide News argued a podcast series that delved into the death of Shandee Blackburn and the involvement of her partner, John Peros, was like an “unfolding story that creates a mystery”.
Naomi Neilson
Shandee Blackburn and John Peros
Peros’ unsuccessful defamation action against Nationwide News, journalist Hedley Thomas, and Blackburn’s sister Shannah over an episode in its “Shandee’s Story” podcast fell short because he was unable to prove it caused serious harm to his reputation.
In 2019, a coroner conducted an extensive investigation that relied on evidence that did not go before the jury. The coroner concluded Blackburn died “due to injuries sustained in an incident involving violence with Mr John Peros, who used a bladed instrument”.
Three years later, Thomas began publishing the podcast series.
Peros took issue with the 13th episode, which included an interview with Shannah and an examination of the coroner’s evidence.
Justice Peter Applegarth of the Queensland Supreme Court found listeners of the first 12 episodes were likely to have already concluded that “the coroner’s findings were right, and that the plaintiff had violently attacked Blackburn with a bladed instrument in a fast, frenzied and personal attack”.
“Listeners to the podcast series were told that the plaintiff was the person who the coroner had found to have violently killed Blackburn, and most listeners would have concluded on the strength of the first 12 episodes that the coroner’s findings were firmly based in evidence that was not placed before the jury,” Justice Applegarth said.
Nationwide News, Thomas, and Shannah had argued Peros’ reputation had been “effectively destroyed” or “decimated” by the widespread reporting of the coroner’s findings, and listeners of episode 13 would have also formed this view already,
Their counsel also proposed a “mystery novel analogy”, which suggested the episodes operated like a mystery, “or at least poses a question at the start, and provides the answer in the final chapter”.
The first question on how the jury and coroner came to different conclusions was answered at the outset.
Its second question, “who killed Shannah Blackburn?”, was the downfall of this defence, with Justice Applegarth finding it could not be sustained, particularly given the 13th episode was one of 20.
“This is not a case where the final chapter (assuming it to be episode 13, with the seven episodes that followed being some kind of long epilogue) revealed the killer, after which all the evidence falls into place,” Justice Applegarth said.
“The podcast was not like a mystery novel set in a stately home in England, and where there is some clever plot twist or revelation in the final chapter.”
Justice Applegarth added the answer to the second question “came long before episode 13” and included different evidence, different rules that applied to a criminal trial and coroner’s court, and a “DNA bungle” about which the “trial participants were ignorant”.
The case is Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2024] QSC 192.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
