R v Struhs
[2025] QSC 10
•29 January 2025
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Struhs [2025] QSC 10 PARTIES: THE KING
v
JASON RICHARD STRUHS
(first accused)
BRENDAN LUKE STEVENS
(second accused)
KERRIE ELIZABETH STRUHS
(third accused)
ZACHARY ALAN STRUHS
(fourth accused)
LORETTA MARY STEVENS(fifth accused)
THERESE MARIA STEVENS
(sixth accused)
ANDREA LOUISE STEVENS
(seventh accused)
ACACIA NAREE STEVENS
(eighth accused)
CAMELLIA CLAIRE STEVENS
(ninth accused)
ALEXANDER FRANCIS STEVENS
(tenth accused)
SEBASTIAN JAMES STEVENS
(eleventh accused)
KEITA COURTNEY MARTIN
(twelfth accused)
LACHLAN STUART SCHOENFISCH
(thirteenth accused)
SAMANTHA EMILY SCHOENFISCH
(fourteenth accused)FILENO: Indictment No. 350 of 2023 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Trial ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane DELIVEREDON: 29 January 2025 DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane HEARING DATES: 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31 July
2024; 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29 August
2024; 3, 4, 5, 6 September 2024; 4 and 10 October 2024; written submissions from the Crown on a point of law dated 24 November 2024 and a response from the accused dated 25
November 2024; further written submissions from the Crown on the point of law dated 3 December 2024 and a response from the accused dated 5 December 2024 JUDGE: Burns J VERDICT: 1. Jason Richard Struhs is not guilty of murder but is guilty of manslaughter.
2. Brendan Luke Stevens is not guilty of murder but is guilty of manslaughter.
3. Kerrie Elizabeth Struhs is guilty of manslaughter.
4. Zachary Alan Struhs is guilty of manslaughter.
5. Loretta Mary Stevens is guilty of manslaughter.
6. Therese Maria Stevens is guilty of manslaughter.
7. Andrea Louise Stevens is guilty of manslaughter.
8. Acacia Naree Stevens is guilty of manslaughter.
9. Camellia Claire Stevens is guilty of manslaughter.
10. Alexander Francis Stevens is guilty of manslaughter.
11. Sebastian James Stevens is guilty of manslaughter.
12. Keita Courtney Martin is guilty of manslaughter.
13. Lachlan Stuart Schoenfisch is guilty of manslaughter.
14. Samantha Emily Schoenfisch is guilty of manslaughter.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY –
VERDICT – where several accused were tried by a judge sitting without jury – where the accused were not legally represented – where the accused refused to enter a plea when each was arraigned – where a plea of not guilty was entered on their behalf – where none of the accused elected to give or call evidence – where the Crown was thereby not entitled to deliver a closing address
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE –
where each accused was a member of a small, home-based and non-denominational religious group– where the accused held a particular belief in the healing power of God that left no room for recourse to any form of medical care or treatment – where the deceased was a child under 16 years of age – where two of the accused were the child’s parents and she was in their care – where her parents each had a duty pursuant to s 286(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) to provide medical care and treatment to the child necessary for her life – where the child suffered from
Type 1 diabetes and required the regular administration of insulin to manage that disease – where, without the regular
administration of insulin, the child would suffer medical complications of diabetes that would cause her death if not medically treated – where the administration of insulin was ceased and no recourse was had to any other form of medical care or treatment – where the child died from diabetic ketoacidosis, a medical complication of Type 1 diabetes caused by lack of insulin and/or medical care and treatment
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER BY RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE – VERDICT –
ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – where one accused who was the father of the child was charged with her murder pursuant to s 302(1)(aa) of the Criminal Code (Qld) – whether the accused caused the child’s death in circumstances where he had a duty to provide medical care and treatment to her necessary for her life – whether the accused breached that duty by failing to provide insulin and/or medical care and treatment to her – whether his failure to provide the child with insulin and/or medical care and treatment was unlawful – whether the accused breached the duty he owed to the child with reckless indifference to her life – whether, at some point between when the administration of insulin was ceased until the child’s death, the accused knew that his failure to provide her with insulin and/or medical care and treatment would probably cause her death – where, in the alternative, the accused was charged with the manslaughter of the child – whether the accused caused the child’s death in circumstances where he had a duty to provide medical care and treatment to her necessary for her life – whether he breached that duty by failing to provide insulin and/or medical care and treatment to her – whether her death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that failure – whether his failure was such as to amount to criminal negligence – whether his failure was unlawful
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER BY RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE – EXTENSION OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY – VERDICT –
ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – where one accused was charged as a party to the offence of murder – whether the accused procured the unlawful killing of the child by counselling either or both her parents to cease providing insulin to her, knowing her father knew that the failure to provide insulin to her would probably cause her death – whether the accused procured the unlawful killing of the child by counselling either or both her parents not to provide medical care and treatment to her, knowing that her father knew that not providing medical care and treatment for her would probably cause her death – whether the accused knew himself that the failure to provide insulin and/or medical care and treatment to the child would probably cause her death –
whether, in the alternative, the accused aided with that intention, or for the purpose of enabling or aiding, either or both her parents to unlawfully kill the child by encouraging and supporting either or both of them to cease providing insulin to her, knowing that her father knew that the failure to provide insulin to her would probably cause her death – whether the accused aided with that intention, or for the purpose of enabling or aiding, either or both her parents to unlawfully kill the child by encouraging and supporting either or both of them not to provide medical care and treatment to her, knowing that her father knew that not providing medical care and treatment for her would probably cause her death – whether the accused was criminally responsible for the manslaughter of the child – whether the accused procured the unlawful killing of the child by counselling either or both her parents to cease providing insulin to her and/or not to provide medical care and treatment for her – whether, in the alternative, the accused aided with that intention, or for the purposes of enabling or aiding, either or both her parents to unlawfully kill the child by encouraging and supporting either or both of them to cease providing insulin to her and/or not to provide medical care and treatment for her
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE –
MANSLAUGHTER – VERDICT – where one accused who was the mother of the child was charged with the manslaughter of the child – whether the accused caused the child’s death in circumstances where she had a duty to provide medical care and treatment to her necessary for her life – whether she breached that duty by failing to provide insulin and/or medical care and treatment to her – whether the child’s death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that failure – whether the accused’s failure was such as to amount to criminal negligence – whether her failure was unlawful
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MANSLAUGHTER – EXTENSION OF CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY – where several accused were charged as a party to the offence of manslaughter – whether the accused counselled or procured the unlawful killing of the child in circumstances amounting to manslaughter by encouraging either or both her parents to cease providing insulin to her and/or not to provide medical care and treatment for her – whether, in the alternative, the accused aided either or both her parents to unlawfully kill the child by supporting their choice to cease providing insulin to her and/or not to provide medical care and treatment for her
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 12
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss 1, 2, 7, 10A, 22, 23, 24, 262,
266, 285, 286, 291, 293, 300, 302, 303, 576, 590AA, 601,
615, 615B, 615C, 616, 619, Ch 27Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2019
(Qld), s 3
Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), s 157
Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA), s 24
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 56AEvidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss 9, 21M, 21N, 21O, 21Q, 93A, 93B, 102, 923C
Explanatory Notes, Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), ss 12A, 13A Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 397 Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1894
The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Act 1989 (Qld), s 26
Agius v The Queen (2011) 80 NSWLR 486; [2011]
NSWCCA 119, cited
Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87; [1988] HCA 39,
cited
Aubertin v The State of Western Australia (2006) 33 WAR 87; [2006] WASCA 229, applied
Bellino v Clair [1993] 2 Qd R 236; [1992] QSC 339, cited
Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10; [1986] HCA 29, cited
Burns v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 334; [2012] HCA 35,
cited
Callaghan v The Queen (1952) 87 CLR 115; [1952] HCA 55, cited
De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57; [2019] HCA 48,
cited
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Poniatowska (2011) 244 CLR 408; [2011] HCA 43, cited
Evgeniou v The Queen (1964) 37 ALJR 508, cited
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68, cited
Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473; [1985] HCA29, followed
G.J Coles & Co Limited v Goldsworthy [1985] WAR 183, cited
Hargraves v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 257; [2011] HCA
44, cited
Hayes v Wilson; ex parte Hayes [1984] 2 Qd R 114; [1984]
QSCFC 10, cited
Irwin v The Queen (2018) 262 CLR 626; [2018] HCA 8, cited
Kaporonovksi v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209; [1973]HCA 35, cited
Heaton v The State of Western Australia (2013) 234 A Crim R 409; [2013] WASCA 207, cited
Koani v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 427; [2017] HCA 42,
cited
La Fontaine v The Queen (1976) 136 CLR 62; [1976] HCA
52, discussed
Loveday v Ayre; ex parte Ayre [1955] St R Qd 264, cited Macaree v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 207, cited
MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512; [1981] HCA
46, cited
Nydam v The Queen [1977] VR 430, cited
Oakey v Jackson [1914] 1 KB 216, cited
Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531; [2012] HCA 29,followed
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; [1911] HCA 66,
cited
Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; [1971] HCA 20,
discussed
Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95; [1991] HCA 34, cited
Plomp v The King (1963) 110 CLR 234; [1963] HCA 44,cited
Productivity Partners Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; Wills v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2024) 98 ALJR 1021; [2024] HCA
27, cited
R v Ancuta [1991] 2 Qd R 413, cited
R v Adams; Ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [1998] QCA 64, followed
R v B & P [1999] 1 Qd R 296; [1998] QCA 45 cited
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, cited
R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129, cited
R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1; [1997] HCA 19, cited
R v Barrett (2007) 171 A Crim R 315; [2007] VSCA 95 cited
R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8, citedR v BBD [2007] 1 Qd R 478; [2006] QCA 441, cited
R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30, followed
R v Bell [2004] QCA 219, cited
R v Bellino & Conte [1993] 1 Qd R 521, cited
R v Brooks (1902) 5 CCC 372; [1902] CanLII 90 (BS SC),cited
R v Butler & Lawton & Marshall [2011] QCA 265, followed
R v Chardon [2019] QSCPR 4, citedR v Coyne [1996] 1 Qd R 512; [1995] QCA 169, cited
R v Dolding (2018) 100 NSWLR 314; [2018] NSWCCA 127
cited
R v F; ex parte Attorney-General [2004] 1 Qd R 162; [2003]
QCA 70, cited
R v Fred [2001] QCA 561, followed
R v Georgiou (2002) 131 A Crim R 150; [2002] QCA 206cited
R v Hawke (2016) 259 A Crim R 114; [2016] QCA 144, cited
R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13, cited
R v Hodgetts and Jackson [1990] 1 Qd R 456, followed
R v Ibrahim (1987) 27 A Crim R 460, cited
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; [1970] HCA 21, cited
R v Jeffrey [2003] 2 Qd R 306; [1997] QCA 460, followed
R v Jervis [1993] 1 Qd R 643, citedR v Julian (1998) 100 A Crim R 430; [1998] QCA 119 cited
R v Kallis [1994] 2 Qd R 88; [1993] QCA 324, cited
R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; [2005] HCA 37, followedR v Licciardello [2018] 3 Qd R 206; [2017] QCA 286, followed
R v Lowrie and Ross [2000] 2 Qd R 529; [1999] QCA 305, citedR v Lui & Johnston (2011) 219 A Crim R 47; [2011] QCA
284, cited
R v MacDonald & MacDonald [1904] St R Qd 151, followed
R v MacFarlane [1993] 1 Qd R 202, cited
R v Markan [2009] QCA 110, cited
R v Markovski (2023) 14 QR 20; [2023] QCA 52 cited
R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450, cited
R v MCS; R v AAZ [2018] QCA 184, cited
R v Mrzljak [2005] 1 Qd R 308; [2004] QCA 420, followed
R v Nielsen (2001) 121 A Crim R 239; [2001] QCA 85,followed
R v Ogawa [2011] 2 Qd R 350; [2009] QCA 307, cited
R v Osip (2000) 2 VR 595; [2000] VSCA 237, appliedR v Peter; R v Banu; R v Ingui [2023] QCA 1, cited
R v Robertson [2023] QCA 47, citedR v Sam (No 17) [2009] NSWSC 803, applied
R v SDL (2022) 302 A Crim R 474; [2022] QCA 207 cited
R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105, followed
R v Solomon (1980) 1 NSWLR 321, followed
R v Smith [1908] QWN 13, followed
R v Steindl [2002] 2 Qd R 542; [2001] QCA 434, cited
R v Struhs & Ors [2023] QSCPR 19, cited
R v Styman; R v Taber [2004] NSWCCA 245, cited
R v Succarieh [2018] 3 Qd R 104; [2017] QCA 282, cited
R v Sullivan and Marshall [2002] 1 Qd R 95; [2000] QCA393, cited
R v Taib; ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [1999] 2 Qd R 649, cited
R v Taiters, ex parte A-G [1997] 1 Qd R 333, cited
R v Taylor [2021] QCA 15, followedR v Thrupp; R v Taiao; R v Walker; R v Daniels [2024] QCA 134, followed
R v Trieu [2008] QCA 28, followed
R v Van Den Bemd [1995] 1 Qd R 401, cited
R v Vannatter [1999] QCA 104, cited
R v Wallis [1998] QCA 229, cited
R v Walsh & Bunting [1902] St R Qd 6, cited
R v Wilson [2009] 1 Qd R 476; [2008] QCA 349, followed
R v Young [1969] Qd R 417, followed
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378; [1991] HCA 27,
followed
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3, cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited
Stevens v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 319; [2005] HCA 65,
cited
Stuart v The Queen (1976) 134 CLR 426; [1974] HCA 54,
followed
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 103, discussed
Taiapa v The Queen (2009) 240 CLR 95; [2009] HCA 53,
cited
The King v Struhs & Ors [2024] QSCPR 16, cited
The Queen v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1; [1997] HCA 19,cited
The Queen v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464; [1985] HCA 22,
discussed
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49, cited
The Queen v Senior [1899] 1 QB 283, discussed
The State of Western Australia v Bell [No 3] [2014] WASC 341, discussed
Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1; [1961] HCA 22, followed
Ugle v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 171; [2002] HCA 25,
followedVarley v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 243, cited Williamson v Betterlay Brick and Block Laying Pty Ltd (2020) 3 QR 594; [2020] QCA 52, cited
COUNSEL:
C N Marco, with T L Corsbie and S O Sherrie for the Crown Self-represented accused
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown Self-represented accused
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
PART 1 – PRELIMINARY............................................................................................. 16
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 16
1.2 The Alleged Offences................................................................................................. 18
Jason Struhs.................................................................................................................... 18
Brendan Stevens.............................................................................................................. 19
Kerrie Struhs................................................................................................................... 19
Zachary Struhs, Loretta Stevens, Therese Stevens, Andrea Stevens, Acacia Stevens, Camellia Stevens, Alexander Stevens, Sebastian Stevens, Keita Martin, Lachlan Schoenfisch and Samantha Schoenfisch..................................................................................................... 20
1.3 The Crown Case......................................................................................................... 20
1.4 The Defence Cases..................................................................................................... 21
1.5 Overview of the Verdicts........................................................................................... 21
PART 2 – FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES................................................................ 23
2.1 A Judge-Alone Trial.................................................................................................. 23
2.2 Self-Represented Accused......................................................................................... 25
2.3 General Principles...................................................................................................... 29
My function...................................................................................................................... 29
The presumption of innocence........................................................................................ 29
The burden of proof........................................................................................................ 29
The standard of proof...................................................................................................... 29
Fourteen trials in one..................................................................................................... 30
The evidence.................................................................................................................... 30
Assessment of evidence................................................................................................... 31
No sympathy or prejudice............................................................................................... 31
No outside influence........................................................................................................ 31
2.4 Particular Principles.................................................................................................. 31
Accused not giving or calling evidence........................................................................... 32
The exercise by the accused of their right to silence...................................................... 32
Circumstantial evidence.................................................................................................. 32
Evidence of states of mind.............................................................................................. 33
Out of court statements................................................................................................... 33
Evidence of the prior investigation and trial.................................................................. 34
The evidence of REK....................................................................................................... 34
Expert evidence............................................................................................................... 35
The evidence of Dr Jarvis............................................................................................... 36
The Tripodi Evidence...................................................................................................... 36
Recordings and associated transcripts............................................................................ 36
Statements attributed to Elizabeth.................................................................................. 37
PART 3 – MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER AND EXTENSION OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.......................................................................................................... 37
3.1 The Duty to Provide a Child in Care with the Necessaries of Life....................... 37
3.2 Murder........................................................................................................................ 41
Murder by reckless indifference to human life................................................................ 42
The test for knowledge is subjective................................................................................ 44
When must there be knowledge of the probability of death?.......................................... 45
Summary of the elements – Jason Struhs........................................................................ 47
3.3 Manslaughter.............................................................................................................. 48
What must be proved?..................................................................................................... 48
The test for criminal negligence is objective................................................................... 50
Effect on possible defences if criminal negligence is proved......................................... 50
Summary of the elements – Jason and Kerrie Struhs...................................................... 51
3.4 Extension of Criminal Responsibility....................................................................... 51
Brendan Stevens.............................................................................................................. 52
Zachary Struhs, Loretta Stevens, Therese Stevens, Andrea Stevens, Acacia Stevens, Camellia Stevens, Alexander Stevens, Sebastian Stevens, Keita Martin, Lachlan Schoenfisch and Samantha Schoenfisch..................................................................................................... 53
What must the Crown prove?.......................................................................................... 53
Proof of the principal offence......................................................................................... 55
Proof of enabling or aiding............................................................................................. 56
Proof of counselling or procuring.................................................................................. 57
Proof of knowledge......................................................................................................... 58
The essential facts or matters for enabling or aiding..................................................... 59
The essential facts or matters for counselling or procuring........................................... 61
Proof the act or omission was unlawful.......................................................................... 63
Summary of the elements – Brendan Stevens.................................................................. 63
Summary of the elements – all accused charged as a party to manslaughter................ 66
PART 4 - DEFENCES..................................................................................................... 67
4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 67
4.2 The Defence under s 23 of the Criminal Code......................................................... 68
4.3 The Defence under s 24 of the Criminal Code......................................................... 70
PART 5 – EVIDENTIARY RULINGS.......................................................................... 74
5.1 The Pre-Trial Hearing............................................................................................... 74
Evidence of the prior investigation and prosecution...................................................... 75
The records of interview.................................................................................................. 76
Tripodi v The Queen....................................................................................................... 76
5.2 Tripodi v The Queen – Evidence Admissible under the Co-Conspirators’ Rule.. 76
Applicable principles....................................................................................................... 77
An unlawful common purpose?....................................................................................... 79
Was there reasonable independent evidence of participation in the common purpose? 80
What acts or statements were done or said in furtherance of the unlawful common purpose?........................................................................................................................................ 89
5.3 Admissibility of Other Evidence............................................................................... 90
5.4 Exclusion of Evidence during the Trial................................................................. 102
PART 6 – OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE........................................................... 103
6.1 Explanation............................................................................................................... 103
6.2 The Stevens family................................................................................................... 103
6.3 The Struhs family..................................................................................................... 104
6.4 Keita Martin............................................................................................................. 105
6.5 The Schoenfisch family............................................................................................ 107
6.6 The Church.............................................................................................................. 111
6.7 Elizabeth almost dies – 17 July 2019...................................................................... 115
6.8 Elizabeth’s diabetes is controlled............................................................................ 131
6.9 Kerrie and Jason Struhs are prosecuted............................................................... 140
6.10Kerrie Struhs in prison.......................................................................................... 143
6.11Jason Struhs’ relationship with his family.......................................................... 145
6.12Jason Struhs joins the Church – 21 August 2021............................................... 147
6.13Kerrie Struhs is released from prison – 15 December 2021.............................. 158
6.14Saturday, 1 January 2022 – New Year’s Day...................................................... 162
6.15Sunday, 2 January 2022 – A declaration is made............................................... 162
6.16Monday, 3 January 2022 – Insulin is ceased....................................................... 164
6.17Tuesday, 4 January 2022 – Elizabeth becomes ill............................................... 169
6.18Wednesday, 5 January 2022 – Elizabeth worsens.............................................. 175
6.19Thursday, 6 January 2022 – Elizabeth is critically ill......................................... 178
6.20Friday, 7 January 2022 – Elizabeth dies.............................................................. 179
6.21Saturday, 8 January 2022 – The authorities are notified................................... 181
6.22The Police Investigation......................................................................................... 185
6.23The Medical Evidence........................................................................................... 189
PART 7 – FINDINGS..................................................................................................... 193
7.1 Preliminary............................................................................................................... 193
Encouragement and support......................................................................................... 193
The true nature of the Crown case on extension of criminal responsibility.................. 194
The Tripodi evidence..................................................................................................... 195
Credit............................................................................................................................ 195
Closing addresses......................................................................................................... 196
7.2 Some commonly proved particulars....................................................................... 196
7.3 Jason Struhs............................................................................................................. 198
The charge.................................................................................................................... 198
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 198
Elements........................................................................................................................ 198
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 199
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 201
Submissions................................................................................................................... 211
Findings – Murder........................................................................................................ 213
Findings – Manslaughter.............................................................................................. 218
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 219
7.4 Brendan Stevens....................................................................................................... 219
The charge.................................................................................................................... 219
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 220
Elements........................................................................................................................ 221
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 223
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 226
Submissions................................................................................................................... 230
Findings – Murder........................................................................................................ 235
Findings – Manslaughter.............................................................................................. 239
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 246
7.5 Kerrie Struhs............................................................................................................ 246
The charge.................................................................................................................... 246
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 246
Elements........................................................................................................................ 247
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 247
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 249
Submissions................................................................................................................... 254
Findings........................................................................................................................ 254
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 256
7.6 Zachary Struhs......................................................................................................... 256
The charge.................................................................................................................... 256
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 256
Elements........................................................................................................................ 257
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 258
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 259
Submissions................................................................................................................... 267
Findings........................................................................................................................ 268
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 274
7.7 Loretta Stevens......................................................................................................... 274
The charge.................................................................................................................... 274
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 274
Elements........................................................................................................................ 275
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 277
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 278
Submissions................................................................................................................... 289
Findings........................................................................................................................ 290
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 296
7.8 Therese Stevens........................................................................................................ 296
The charge.................................................................................................................... 296
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 296
Elements........................................................................................................................ 297
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 298
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 300
Submissions................................................................................................................... 304
Findings........................................................................................................................ 304
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 310
7.9 Andrea Stevens......................................................................................................... 310
The charge.................................................................................................................... 310
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 310
Elements........................................................................................................................ 311
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 312
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 314
Submissions................................................................................................................... 326
Findings........................................................................................................................ 327
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 333
7.10Acacia Stevens........................................................................................................ 333
The charge.................................................................................................................... 333
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 333
Elements........................................................................................................................ 334
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 336
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 336
Submissions................................................................................................................... 337
Findings........................................................................................................................ 338
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 344
7.11Camellia Stevens.................................................................................................... 344
The charge.................................................................................................................... 344
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 344
Elements........................................................................................................................ 345
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 346
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 347
Submissions................................................................................................................... 353
Findings........................................................................................................................ 354
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 360
7.12Alexander Stevens.................................................................................................. 360
The charge.................................................................................................................... 360
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 360
Elements........................................................................................................................ 361
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 363
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 364
Submissions................................................................................................................... 368
Findings........................................................................................................................ 370
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 376
7.13 Sebastian Stevens.................................................................................................... 376
The charge.................................................................................................................... 376
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 376
Elements........................................................................................................................ 377
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 379
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 380
Submissions................................................................................................................... 384
Findings........................................................................................................................ 384
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 391
7.14Keita Martin........................................................................................................... 391
The charge.................................................................................................................... 391
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 391
Elements........................................................................................................................ 392
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 393
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 394
Submissions................................................................................................................... 402
Findings........................................................................................................................ 403
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 410
7.15Lachlan Schoenfisch.............................................................................................. 410
The charge.................................................................................................................... 410
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 410
Elements........................................................................................................................ 411
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 412
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 413
Submissions................................................................................................................... 419
Findings........................................................................................................................ 420
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 426
7.16Samantha Schoenfisch........................................................................................... 427
The charge.................................................................................................................... 427
Particulars..................................................................................................................... 427
Elements........................................................................................................................ 427
Crown case.................................................................................................................... 429
Evidence........................................................................................................................ 430
Submissions................................................................................................................... 441
Findings........................................................................................................................ 442
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 449
APPENDIX – EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE CO-CONSPIRATORS’ RULE.......................................................................................................................................... 450
PART 1 – PRELIMINARY
1.1 Introduction
[1]By the indictment before the court, Jason Richard Struhs and Brendan Luke Stevens are charged with the murder of Elizabeth Rose Struhs on or about 7 January 2022 at Toowoomba. She was eight years of age at the time of her death and would later that month have celebrated her ninth birthday had she lived.
[2]Twelve other accused, namely, Kerrie Elizabeth Struhs, Zachary Alan Struhs, Loretta Mary Stevens, Therese Maria Stevens, Andrea Louise Stevens, Acacia Naree Stevens, Camellia Claire Stevens, Alexander Francis Stevens, Sebastian James Stevens, Keita Courtney Martin, Lachlan Stuart Schoenfisch and Samantha Emily Schoenfisch are each charged with the manslaughter of the child.
[3]When separately arraigned at the commencement of the trial, each accused refused to enter a plea. In accordance with s 601 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), I directed on each occasion that a plea of not guilty be entered and, after all accused were arraigned,
I directed the trial to proceed.1
[4]The trial took place without a jury in accordance with orders made by the Chief Justice on 27 November 2023 pursuant to s 615 of the Criminal Code.2 It commenced on 10 July 2024 and concluded on 6 September 2024. All told, the trial occupied 35 hearing days over nine consecutive sitting weeks. Evidence was heard from over 60 witnesses and hundreds of documentary, electronic and other exhibits were received in evidence. Throughout the trial many hours were also devoted to listening and viewing recorded conversations as well as numerous formal records of interviews.
[5]The court reconvened on 4 and 10 October 2024 to hear and determine an application brought pursuant to r 56A of the Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld) by sections of the electronic and print media for access to several exhibits tendered during the trial and, on 14 November 2024, an Order was made giving effect to the rulings on the hearing of the application. Then, by letter dated 18 November 2024, the court sought assistance on a point of law. The Crown provided written submissions on the point on 25 November 2024 and the accused responded by letter the following day in which the court was advised they did not wish to “raise any objections or make any submissions”. One aspect of the Crown’s written submissions became the subject of a further letter from the court on 25 November 2024. In response, the Crown provided further written submissions dated 3 December 2024. The accused responded by letter dated 5 December 2024 in which they again advised they had chosen not to “make any objections or provide any submissions”.3
[6]None of the accused was legally represented at any stage of the proceeding. That was a deliberate choice. None of the accused gave or called evidence. That was by formal election. By this combination of circumstances, however, the Crown was not entitled to deliver a closing address.
1 As to which, see R v Ibrahim (1987) 27 A Crim R 460, 461-462.
2 R v Struhs & Ors [2023] QSCPR 19.
3The correspondence from the court, the Crown’s written submissions and the accused’s responses will be collectively marked MFI-5G.
[7]After the Crown opening at the commencement of the trial, I invited all accused to make an opening statement. Only one accused spoke, although he purported to speak on behalf of all. That was Brendan Stevens, the spiritual leader of a small, home-based Church of which each other accused was a member at the time of Elizabeth’s death. He asserted, amongst other things, that the trial was “just a religious persecution”, that the accused did not “have any particular care” amongst themselves how they were judged by the court and that they did not “come to fight the charge”. Despite that, most accused progressively engaged in one way or another with the trial process and, by its conclusion, all 14 accused stood to address the court. Their addresses occupied a whole sitting day on the last day of trial and most accused advanced submissions to the effect that he or she should be acquitted of any wrongdoing.
[8]This judgment is in seven Parts:
·This, Part 1, sets out the alleged offences, an overview of the Crown case, an overview of each of the defence cases and a brief overview of the verdicts which I have reached;
·Part 2 records the foundational principles I have applied in arriving at those verdicts;
·Part 3 is devoted to the substantive principles of law I have applied in my consideration of the offence of murder (by, here, reckless indifference) and the offence of manslaughter as well as the principles that operate to extend criminal responsibility (to, here, counsellors, procurers and aiders);
·Part 4 deals with possible defences raised on the evidence;
·Part 5 is concerned with the evidentiary rulings made before and during the trial including an important ruling I made regarding the admission of a large bracket of evidence in accordance with the principles laid down by the High Court in Tripodi v The Queen;4
·Part 6 provides an overview of the evidence; and
·Part 7 contains the findings of fact on which I have relied in arriving at my verdicts.
[9]Until her death, Elizabeth Rose Struhs was a vibrant, happy child with, of course, her whole life ahead of her. She left a lasting impression on many with whom she came into contact on the outside, whether through her schooling or during the treatment and control of a medical condition she was first diagnosed with in 2019 – Type 1 diabetes. It cannot be doubted that she was lovingly cared for in almost every way by her parents, Jason and Kerrie Struhs, or that she was adored by every member of the Church including all other accused. However, due to a singular belief in the healing power of God which, to the minds of her parents and the other members of the Church left no room for recourse to any form of medical care or treatment, she was deprived of the one thing that would most definitely have kept her alive – insulin. Her death was inevitable once the administration of that drug was abandoned and when, encouraged and supported by the other accused, her parents refused to seek any
4 (1961) 104 CLR 1.
medical assistance in the days and nights which followed until her death. Because much of the evidence referred to her simply as “Elizabeth”, I shall do the same in this judgment, although I mean no disrespect to her or her memory in doing so.
1.2 The Alleged Offences
[10]By the indictment:
(a) Jason Struhs and Brendan Stevens are charged with murder: Counts 1 and 2;
(b) The balance of the accused – Kerrie Struhs, Zachary Struhs, Loretta Stevens, Therese Stevens, Andrea Stevens, Camelia Stevens, Acacia Stevens, Alexander Stevens, Sebastian Stevens, Keita Martin, Lachlan Schoenfisch and Samantha Schoenfisch – are charged with manslaughter: Count 3.5
[11]The Crown has supplied the following particulars common to all counts and all accused:
(a) Elizabeth was a child under 16 years of age;
(b) Jason and Kerrie Struhs were her parents and she was in their care;
(c) Jason and Kerrie Struhs each had a duty pursuant to s 286(1) of the Criminal Code to provide medical care and treatment to Elizabeth necessary for her life;
(d) Elizabeth suffered from Type 1 diabetes and required regular administration of insulin to treat that disease;
(e) Without the regular administration of insulin, Elizabeth would suffer medical complications of diabetes that would cause her death if not medically treated;
(f) On or about 7 January 2022, Elizabeth died from diabetic ketoacidosis, a medical complication of Type 1 diabetes caused by lack of insulin and/or medical care and treatment.
Jason Struhs
[12]By the particulars supplied by the Crown for Count 1, it is alleged that Jason Struhs unlawfully caused Elizabeth’s death in circumstances amounting to murder by:
(a) Failing to provide insulin to Elizabeth, knowing that the failure to provide insulin to her would probably cause her death; and/or
(b) Not providing medical care and treatment for Elizabeth, knowing that not providing medical care and treatment for her would probably cause her death.
[13]In the event I am not satisfied Mr Struhs is guilty of murder because the Crown has not proven the requisite mental element for that offence,6 I must go on to consider whether Mr Struhs is guilty of manslaughter.7 In that regard, it is alleged that Mr Struhs unlawfully caused Elizabeth’s death by:
5In addition, for all accused, the offence charged is alleged to be a domestic violence offence. If convicted, the conviction must be recorded as a conviction for a domestic violence offence unless the court is not satisfied that it is: Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12A. The expression, “domestic violence offence”, is defined in s 1 of the Criminal Code.
6 See the later discussion at Part 3.2 – Murder.
7 Criminal Code, s 576.
(a) Failing to provide insulin to her; and/or
(b) Not providing medical care and treatment for her.
Brendan Stevens
[14]By the particulars supplied by the Crown for Count 2, it is alleged that Brendan Stevens procured the unlawful killing of Elizabeth in circumstances amounting to murder by counselling either or both Jason Struhs and Kerrie Struhs:
(a) To cease providing insulin to Elizabeth, knowing that Jason Struhs knew that the failure to provide insulin to her would probably cause her death; and/or
(b) Not to provide medical care and treatment for Elizabeth, knowing that Jason Struhs knew that not providing medical care and treatment for her would probably cause her death;
and knowing himself that the failure to provide insulin and/or medical care and treatment to Elizabeth would probably cause her death.
[15]Alternatively, it is alleged by the particulars supplied by the Crown that Brendan Stevens aided with that intention, or for the purpose of enabling or aiding, either or both Jason Struhs and Kerrie Struhs, to unlawfully kill Elizabeth, again in circumstances amounting to murder, by encouraging and supporting either or both of them:
(a) To cease providing insulin to Elizabeth, knowing that Jason Struhs knew that the failure to provide insulin to her would probably cause her death; and/or
(b) Not to provide medical care and treatment to Elizabeth knowing that Jason Struhs knew that not providing medical care and treatment for her would probably cause her death.
[16]As with Jason Struhs, in the event I am not satisfied Mr Stevens is guilty of murder, I must go on to consider whether Mr Stevens is guilty of manslaughter. In that regard, the Crown allege that Mr Stevens procured the unlawful killing of Elizabeth by counselling either or both Jason Struhs and Kerrie Struhs:
(a) To cease providing insulin to her; and/or
(b) Not to provide medical care and treatment for her.
[17]Alternatively, it is alleged that Mr Stevens aided with that intention, or for the purposes of enabling or aiding, either or both Jason Struhs and Kerrie Struhs to unlawfully kill Elizabeth by encouraging and supporting either or both of them:
(a) To cease providing insulin to her; and/or
(b) Not to provide medical care and treatment for her.
Kerrie Struhs
[18]By the particulars supplied by the Crown for Count 3 in the case of Kerrie Struhs, the Crown alleges she unlawfully caused Elizabeth’s death in circumstances amounting to manslaughter by:
(a) Failing to provide insulin to Elizabeth; and/or
(b) Not providing medical care and treatment for Elizabeth.
Zachary Struhs, Loretta Stevens, Therese Stevens, Andrea Stevens, Acacia Stevens, Camellia Stevens, Alexander Stevens, Sebastian Stevens, Keita Martin, Lachlan Schoenfisch and Samantha Schoenfisch
[19]By the particulars supplied by the Crown for Count 3 in the case of each of Zachary Struhs, Loretta Stevens, Therese Stevens, Andrea Stevens, Acacia Stevens, Camellia Stevens, Alexander Stevens, Sebastian Stevens, Keita Martin, Lachlan Schoenfisch and Samantha Schoenfisch, the Crown alleges that they counselled and/or procured either or both of Jason and Kerrie Struhs to unlawfully kill Elizabeth in circumstances amounting to manslaughter by encouraging and/or supporting either or both of them to cease providing insulin to her and/or not to provide medical care and treatment for her.
[20]Alternatively, the Crown alleges by the particulars supplied that they aided with that intention, or for the purpose of enabling or aiding, Jason or Kerrie Struhs or both of them to unlawfully kill Elizabeth, again in circumstances amounting to manslaughter, by supporting their choice to cease providing insulin to her and/or not to provide medical care and treatment for her.
1.3 The Crown Case
[21]The Crown case against all accused was premised on the duty owed under the law by Jason and Kerrie Struhs to provide Elizabeth with such medical care and treatment as was necessary for the preservation of her life. Each had been previously dealt with by the courts for failing to do so. Each, the Crown contended, failed to do so again with the inevitable consequence that Elizabeth died.
[22]All accused, except for Jason Struhs, held to a fervent belief in the healing power of God of the kind already mentioned, that is to say, a belief that left no room for recourse to any form of medical care or treatment. This was a core belief of the Church, and no suggestion was made by the Crown that it was not genuinely held by its members. However, the Crown alleged that, when Jason Struhs joined the Church after 17 years of staunch opposition, he was persuaded by all other accused to adopt, and then act on, that core belief with the consequence that he ceased the administration of insulin to Elizabeth and, further, that they aided him through encouragement and support not to resume insulin or to seek any other form of medical care or treatment for her in the intervening days and nights before she died.
[23]In the cases against Jason Struhs and Brendan Stevens, the Crown maintained that, not only was each criminally responsible for Elizabeth’s death, but they acted in circumstances where they were recklessly indifferent to human life. This was because, it was alleged, both knew that, by ceasing insulin and shunning any other form of medical intervention, Elizabeth would probably die. Each was accordingly said to be guilty of murder because they acted (or omitted to act) with reckless indifference to Elizabeth’s life.
[24]The case against Kerrie Struhs for manslaughter was based on her refusal to fulfill the duty owed by her to provide Elizabeth with such medical care and treatment as was necessary for the preservation of her life.
[25]All other accused were said to be criminally responsible for Elizabeth’s death because, by their words and actions of encouragement and support, they both counselled and aided the unlawful killing of Elizabeth by intentionally encouraging Jason Struhs to cease providing insulin as well as medical care and treatment to Elizabeth, and by intentionally supporting his choice to continue to do so. This, it was said, amounted to manslaughter.
1.4 The Defence Cases
[26]Reference has already been made to the opening statement delivered by Brendan Stevens. He emphasised that all accused were within their “rights to believe in the Word of God completely” and that they had chosen to “follow God”, echoing remarks made by Kerrie Struhs in her closing address to the jury at her trial in 2021. Mr Stevens asserted that the prosecution against all accused was a prosecution for believing in God.
[27]By the end of the trial, all accused continued to maintain the position that they were entitled to their particular belief in the healing power of God, even if that conflicted with the laws of the world. However, in addition, many accused submitted they played no role in the decision Jason Struhs made to cease the administration of insulin to Elizabeth. Similarly, it was submitted they played no role in Mr Struhs’ choice not to resume insulin or seek any other form of medical care or treatment. All they had done, it was submitted, was to encourage Mr Struhs to believe in God. To the point, they submitted they had done nothing to persuade, encourage or support Mr Struhs in the decision and choice he made. Any influence in those respects, it was said, must have come from God, and Mr Struhs agreed with that proposition in his closing address.
1.5 Overview of the Verdicts
[28]Regardless of whether the other essential elements of the offence of murder were proved by the Crown, unless I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, at some point between the time when the decision was made by Jason Struhs to cease the administration of insulin to Elizabeth (Monday, 3 January 2022) and the time when she died (Friday, 7 January 2022), he knew his failure to provide her with insulin and/or medical care and treatment would probably cause her death, Mr Struhs could not be guilty of murder. In this respect, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt Mr Struhs knew of the probability, as opposed to the possibility, of death. Nothing less than a full realisation on his part that Elizabeth would probably die as a consequence of his failure to act would be sufficient to establish murder in this way, that is, murder by reckless indifference to her life.
[29]Whether this element of the offence was proved to the requisite standard depended on an assessment of the subjective state of mind of Mr Struhs, and not on what a reasonable person might or would have foreseen as a probable consequence of his omission. As such, the test is not objective, and it does not matter that a reasonable person in Mr Struhs’ position would have known Elizabeth would probably die.
[30]For the reasons set out in Part 7.3, after a consideration of the whole of the evidence admissible against Mr Struhs, there remained a reasonable possibility that, in the cloistered atmosphere of the Church which enveloped Mr Struhs, and which only intensified once he made the decision to cease the administration of insulin, he was so consumed by the particular belief in the healing power of God promoted by its members that he never came to the full realisation Elizabeth would probably die, believing instead that God would not allow that to happen.
[31]I was therefore not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of proof of this essential element and, because all elements of the alleged offence must be proved before a guilty verdict may be returned, Mr Struhs must be acquitted of murder. I was, however, satisfied that Jason Struhs was guilty of manslaughter, for the reasons set out in Part 7.3.
[32]Similar considerations applied in the case against Brendan Stevens for murder. Again, in his case, I could not be satisfied after a consideration of the whole of the evidence admissible against him that Mr Stevens was possessed of the requisite state of mind at any point between the time when the decision was made by Jason Struhs to cease the administration of insulin to Elizabeth and the time when she died. In that regard, proof was required that, at some point over the period under consideration, Mr Stevens knew that Mr Struhs knew that the failure to provide insulin and/or medical care and treatment would probably cause her death. As with Mr Struhs, whether this element of the offence was proved to the requisite standard depended on an assessment of the subjective state of mind of Mr Stevens, and not on what a reasonable person might have known about Mr Struhs’ state of mind. My reasons for coming to that conclusion are set out in Part 7.4. The Crown not having proved that element of the offence of murder, Mr Stevens must be acquitted of that charge. I was, however, satisfied that Mr Stevens was guilty of manslaughter, again, for the reasons set out in Part 7.4.
[33]In the case against Kerrie Struhs, for the reasons set out in Part 7.5, I was satisfied that she was guilty of manslaughter. As with her husband, the complete abdication on Mrs Struhs’ part of the legal duty she owed to her daughter constituted such an egregious departure from the standard of care a reasonable member of the community would observe in the same circumstances as to amount to a crime against the State that is deserving of punishment. Again, like her husband, when her conduct was viewed objectively, it must be seen as having involved grave moral guilt and disregard for human life.
[34]For all other accused, for the reasons set out in Parts 7.6 to 7.16, I was satisfied that each both counselled and aided the unlawful killing of Elizabeth by intentionally encouraging Jason Struhs to cease providing insulin as well as medical care and treatment to Elizabeth and by intentionally supporting his choice to continue to do so. Accordingly, each was guilty of manslaughter.
[35]In the result:
(a) Jason Struhs is not guilty of murder but is guilty of manslaughter;
(b) Brendan Stevens is not guilty of murder but is guilty of manslaughter;
(c) Kerrie Struhs is guilty of manslaughter;
(d) Zachary Struhs is guilty of manslaughter;
(e) Loretta Stevens is guilty of manslaughter;
(f) Therese Stevens is guilty of manslaughter;
(g) Andrea Stevens is guilty of manslaughter;
(h) Acacia Stevens is guilty of manslaughter;
(i) Camellia Stevens is guilty of manslaughter;
(j) Alexander Stevens is guilty of manslaughter;
(k) Sebastian Stevens is guilty of manslaughter;
(l) Keita Martin is guilty of manslaughter;
(m) Lachlan Schoenfisch is guilty of manslaughter; and
(n) Samantha Schoenfisch is guilty of manslaughter.
PART 2 – FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES
[36]As I will shortly record, the reasons for my verdicts must include the principles of law that I have applied and then the findings of fact on which I have relied. The purpose of this Part is to set out the foundational principles I have applied. These include the principles governing a trial without a jury where the accused are not legally represented, as well as a range of general and particular warnings and principles which would be applied, by direction, if this trial was before a jury. As will be seen, these consist of various common law and statutory requirements which I must take, and have taken, into account in arriving at my verdicts.
[37]In the two Parts immediately following – Part 3 – Murder, Manslaughter and Criminal Responsibility and Part 4 – Defences – I discuss and then set out the substantive principles of law I have applied in determining what the Crown must prove to make good the case against each accused.
2.1 A Judge-Alone Trial
[38]Section 615B(1) of the Criminal Code provides that, in a trial by a judge sitting without a jury, the judge must apply, so far as is practicable, the same principles of law and procedure as would be applied in a trial before a jury.
[39]If a statute or the common law requires information, a warning or an instruction to be given to the jury in particular circumstances, the judge in a trial by a judge sitting alone must take that requirement into account if those circumstances arise in the course of the trial: s 615B(2)(a).
[40]The judge may make any findings or give any verdict that a jury could have made or given if the trial had been before a jury, and any finding or verdict of the judge has, for all purposes, the same effect as a finding or verdict of a jury: s 615C(1).
[41]The reasons for the verdict must include the principles of law that the judge has applied and the findings of fact on which he or she has relied: s 615C(3).8
[42]In The State of Western Australia v Bell [No 3],9 McKechnie J had this to say about the nature of the task confronting a judge who sits without a jury:
“A jury is required to return a verdict if it is able to achieve unanimity. A jury is not required to provide reasons for its verdict.
A judge is required to set out the principles of law that have been applied and the findings of the fact that have been made …
Reaching judgment is an evolving process. Testimonies of witnesses are absorbed and initial impressions formed. These initial impressions are then subjected to analysis and comparison with other testimony and physical evidence. Initial impressions may be altered as the trial proceeds and more evidence becomes available.
When the trial has finished a judge embarks upon a reflective consideration. Principles of law are identified or revisited and the evidence evaluated against these principles. The submissions of counsel are important in highlighting their respective cases and are given careful analysis.
A jury has the inestimable advantage of discussion and sharing of views and opinions. Twelve people can share with each other their impressions and views, acknowledge contrary opinions, and alter their stance accordingly.
A judge has no such equivalent but works in the solitude of chambers. A judge can discuss a case with no-one lest the judge be subject to unconscious influence. For that, among other reasons, it is important for a judge to take time to reflect on the evidence and to test possible theories and assumptions against the framework of legal principles.
The physical act of writing and explaining the reasons for a decision also concentrates the mind. Errors of reasoning may be identified and corrected.”10
[43]I followed much the same deliberative process as his Honour described. There are, however, some obvious differences between that case and this; the accused were not legally represented so there never at any stage a legal contradictor and, because they did not give or call evidence, there was no closing address from the Crown.
8 As to this requirement, see Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250, [32]-[33].
9 [2014] WASC 341.
10 Ibid, [8]-[14].
2.2 Self-Represented Accused
[44]As just mentioned, none of the accused was legally represented at any stage of the proceeding. They consistently refused to seek legal representation, despite having been repeatedly encouraged to do so. For example, on 20 September 2023 they were advised in writing (and orally at a pre-trial review conducted two days later):
“That the trial judge cannot provide an accused person with legal advice must be firmly understood by each accused. Each of you may conduct your own case but you also have a right to legal representation. Without legal representation, you will be at a serious and continuing disadvantage, and not merely because you have insufficient legal knowledge or skills to conduct your own defence but also because an unrepresented accused person will be unable to dispassionately assess and present his or her case in the same manner as counsel would if the person was represented. A trial judge cannot investigate the facts or confer with an accused person, let alone advise or otherwise participate in the kind of decisions necessary to make effectual defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter.
If convicted of murder, the sentence cannot be anything other than life imprisonment and, if convicted of manslaughter, a lengthy period of imprisonment can be expected. Given such grave potential consequences, each of you is urged to give proper consideration to obtaining legal representation without any further delay.”11 (Emphasis in original).
[45]That made clear, the unrepresented status of the accused meant I was obliged to give each accused sufficient information to enable him or her to have a fair trial.12 Although this can extend to advising an accused about particular rights or procedures, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of exercising those rights or procedures, I could not, and did not, provide any of the accused with legal advice because my function was and remained purely judicial.
[46]Importantly, whilst it is not for the court to conduct the case for an accused, the following observations made by Brennan J (as his Honour then was) in MacPherson v The Queen are instructive:
“… an accused who elects to defend himself forfeits none of his rights thereby. If he has not had a trial according to law, his intransigent refusal to accept legal representation is no ground for dismissing his appeal either under the proviso or otherwise. The absence of legal representation imposes a heavier burden upon the trial judge and denies an accused the assistance of an advocate who can usually present an accused’s case more effectively than the accused himself; but it is a circumstance which is entirely neutral on appeal except in so far as it is relevant to the fairness of the trial. … Whether any and what advice should be given to an accused depends upon the circumstances of the particular case and of the particular accused. What can be said is that if it is necessary to give any advice, the necessity arises from the judge’s
11 Information Memorandum 1 (Exhibit MFI-1A).
12 MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, 523, 534; R v Markan [2009] QCA 110, [26].
duty to ensure that the trial is fair. That duty does not require, indeed it is inconsistent with, advising an accused how to conduct his case; but it may require advice to an accused as to his rights in order that he may determine how to conduct his case.”13
[47]The principal ways in which the accused were given information to enable them to have a fair trial was through the conduct of pre-trial reviews and the provision of written information in the form of a series of Information Memoranda. The information thus provided was then orally reinforced and supplemented as necessary in the lead-up to, and during, the trial. Other information was also conveyed to the accused at different times regarding topics not covered by the Information Memoranda. On 12 May 2023 a communications protocol was established to put all accused in ready contact with relevant persons within Queensland Corrective Services, the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld), Legal Aid (Qld), the Criminal List Manager and my Associate in order to seek legal assistance, apply for bail or raise any other question regarding the proceeding.
[48]The indictment was presented on 6 April 2023 and, at that time, Applegarth J spent a considerable period of time advising the accused about their rights, the likely course of the proceeding and the importance of obtaining legal representation. Pre-trial reviews were then conducted by me on 13 separate occasions – 12 May 2023, 6 June 2023, 4 August 2023, 8 August 2023, 22 September 2023, 6 October 2023, 13
December 2023, 1 February 2024, 27 March 2024, 1 May 2024, 15 May 2024, 12 June 2024 and 3 July 2024. An application for an order that the trial proceed before a judge alone was heard and determined by Bowskill CJ on 27 November 202314 and a pre-trial hearing by which various evidentiary rulings were sought took place before Martin SJA on 20 May 2024, with those rulings being handed down on 24 June 2024.15
[49]Information Memorandum 1 was provided on 20 September 2023.16 It covered the following topics:
(a) The role of the trial judge;
(b) The importance of legal representation;
(c) The availability of legal assistance;
(d) Contacts;
(e) Your entitlement to apply for bail;
(f) The indictment and particulars;
(g) Disclosure;
(h) Trial by jury/trial by judge alone?
(i) Joint trial/separate trials?
13 MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, 546-547.
14 R v Struhs & Ors [2023] QSCPR 19.
15The King v Struhs & Ors [2024] QSCPR 16. His Honour ordered that the Crown provide minutes of order to reflect the rulings. This duly occurred and the Order made on 1 July 2024.
16 Exhibit MFI-1A.
(j) Transfer – Toowoomba to Brisbane?
(k) Child witnesses and cross-examination;
(l) Notice of alibi;
(m) Availability of transcript;
(n) Meeting.
[50]Information Memorandum 2 was provided at a pre-trial review conducted on 15 May 2024.17 It was devoted to the pre-trial hearing listed to proceed before Martin SJA on 20 May 2024. It covered various topics under these headings:
(a) Preliminary;
(b) Evidence must be admissible;
(c) Disclosure does not make something admissible;
(d) Exclusionary rules;
(e) 14 trials in one;
(f) Different types of evidence;
(g) The pre-trial hearing;
(h) Evidence of the prior investigation and trial
(i) The admissibility of parts of certain recordings;
(j) Editing out portions of the recorded statements made by several of you;
(k) The co-conspirators’ rule.
[51]Information Memorandum 3 was provided on 17 May 2024.18 It was devoted to the elements of the offences of murder and manslaughter and contained the following topics:
(a) The Indictment;
(b) Particulars;
(c) Alleged factual premise for all counts;
(d) Extension of criminal responsibility;
(e) Elements of the offence of murder;
(f) Elements of the offence of manslaughter.
[52]Information Memorandum 4 was provided on 11 June 202419 and was concerned with trial procedure. It covered topics under the following headings:
(a) Commencement of, and attendance at, the trial;
17 Exhibit MFI-1B.
18 Exhibit MFI-1C.
19 Exhibit MFI-1D.
(b) Arraignment;
(c) Opening remarks;
(d) The Crown’s opening address;
(e) Your right to make an opening statement;
(f) The Crown case and your right to cross-examine;
(g) Right to object to questions asked by the prosecutor;
(h) Right to make a “no case” submission;
(i) Right to give or not give evidence;
(j) Subpoenas;
(k) Closing address;
(l) When the Crown prosecutor does and does not have a right to a closing address;
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 3/01/22 | 10:07:00 AM | Andrea Stevens messages Jason Struhs: “Hi Jason! Here’s the pancake recipe. So good to hear your good news. Praise God for your faith and His promise.” | Text message Exhibits 54 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 3/01/22 | 10:17:00 AM | Jason Struhs replies to Andrea Stevens: “Thank you Andrea for your words of encouragement.” Andrea “likes” this message. | Text message Exhibits 54 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 3/01/22 | 1:52:00 PM | Samantha Schoenfisch messages Jason Struhs: “Hi Jason we will be over in about 10 minutes if that suits.” Jason Struhs replies: “That’s fine Sam.” | Text message Exhibits 54 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 7:16:00 AM | Kerrie Struhs messages Brendan Stevens: “Would you have a prayer for us please.” Brendan Stevens replies: “Yes indeed Kerrie.” | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 8:26:00 AM | Kerrie Struhs messages Brendan Stevens: “Thank you for your prayers. We are singing, and praying, and talking about the promises of God. Rejoicing. Not letting the flesh take hold.” | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 8:28:20 AM | Brendan Stevens messages Kerrie Struhs: “Praise God Kerrie. We are also having prayer individually and trusting our faithful God.” | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 10:51:00 AM | Brendan Stevens messages Jason and Kerrie Struhs: “Praise God Jason and Kerrie. We were talking about the situation when we came together. We are all so confident that Elizabeth is healed by God as both He and you have declared. Rest in His glorious love, power and faithfulness. This is just a little trial to prove that you all are truly faithful to our faithful God.” | Text message Exhibits 47, 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 10:55:00 AM | Brendan Stevens messages Jason and Kerrie Struhs: “He would Never fail you especially because you have faithfully declared Him. He is not a God of deceit but a God of Glory and Power and Love and faithfulness to a thousand generations of them that love Him.” | Text message Exhibits 47, | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 10:57:00 AM | Brendan Stevens messages Jason and Kerrie Struhs: “Don’t think that you are waiting for the healing, you indeed have it. You have seen His glory. You are just steadfastly residing the evil one. Praise God!!” | Text message Exhibits 47, 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 4/01/22 | 10:59:00 AM | Brendan Stevens messages Jason and Kerrie Struhs: “Our prayers are ever with you. You have proved yourselves faithful. You are His much loved children. Doubt not my friends and brothers in Christ.” | Text message Exhibits 47 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 11:02:00 AM | Brendan Stevens messages Jason and Kerrie Struhs: “Jason just loudly declare as you lead your family in truth that God does not turn back on His promises and that Elizabeth is still healed as she was yesterday. The Lord will bless your faithful words and your declaration of His truth.” | Text message Exhibits 47 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 11:04:49 AM | Kerrie Struhs messages Brendan Stevens and Jason Struhs: “Thank you Brendan.” | Text message Exhibits 52, 54 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 11:08:00 AM | Therese Stevens messages Zachary, RNT and REK: “Lift those spirits up! God is with us! Any confusion we feel is not from him. He will always deliver us as we look to him, steadfast in the faith. All of the saints’ prayers are with you - and they work! The angel is already on his way. Fear not! This is the day that the Lord has made, we will rejoice and be glad in it! Love Thérèse.” | Text message Exhibits 57 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 11:25:00 AM | Andrea Stevens messages RNT after RNT wishes her happy birthday: “Thank you [RNT]. I will. Praise God! He will work a marvelous work in your family.” | Text message Exhibits 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 12:04:00 PM | Brendan Stevens messages Jason Struhs: “This is the card we gave to Andrea this morning. As you can see I also have declared it because it be true. We wait not to see if God be true, we always declare it because it is true and wait only for the test of patience to be fulfilled.” The image of the card shows the inside says “4.1.21 To our dear Andrea, Happy 32nd Birthday celebrating the healing of Elizabeth with love from Dad and Mum.” | Text message Exhibits 54 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 12:06:00 PM | Loretta Stevens messages Kerrie Struhs: “Praise the Lord my friends. We are all constantly praying and supporting you in prayer. Our God is gracious and will never give us more than we can bear. (He knows our threshold better than us!). Build up the joy my friends and rejoice. Those that be planted in the Lord will always overcome and be victorious. Through our God we shall do valiantly.” | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 4/01/22 | 12:37:00 PM | Sebastian Stevens messages Zachary Struhs: “How is the family?” | Text message Exhibits 53 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 12:38:00 PM | Zachary Struhs messages Sebastian Stevens: “Yes they good. Had lots of pray and songs this morning. I’m going to go in for lunch soon and catch up. Didn’t go in till after 10.” | Text message Exhibits 53 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 12:41:00 PM | Sebastian Stevens messages Zachary Struhs: “Ok. That’s good. We’ve been praying too. We know this is just Satan having his last go. Just like the temptations in the wilderness after the miracles of the Passover and the Red Sea. God is faithful. Enjoy the rest of the day”. | Text message Exhibits 53 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 1:29:00 PM | Kerrie Struhs messages Andrea Stevens: “Happy birthday Andrea! You are not far from our thoughts. Have a wonderful day.” | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 1:31:00 PM | Andrea Stevens messages Kerrie Struhs: “Thanks Kerrie and family! Praise the Lord - we’re also praying for you all and know that the Lord will be victorious in your lives. You will be steadfast in faith and Satan SHALL flee.” | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 2:23:00 PM | Kerrie Struhs messages Brendan Stevens: “Hi Brendan. Praise the Lord. I pray for you as well. Jason is not going too well. I’m not sore what else you could say, but he’s reading your texts but not able to be encouraged by them.” | Text message Exhibits 47, | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 2:24:00 PM | Jason Struhs messages Brendan Stevens: “Hi Brendan thanks for your thoughts but Iam still really struggling with my flesh with Elizabeth still be sick I can’t seem to brake out of this even with prayer and songs Iam so scared and lost in my thoughts. I thought I was ready for this step but now I seem to be questioning it”. | Text message Exhibits 47 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 2:24:00 PM | Brendan Stevens messages Jason Struhs: “I’m on my way around to see you Jason.” | Text message Exhibits 47 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | Brendan Stevens messages Kerrie Struhs: “I’ll come around”. | Text message Exhibits 47 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 4/01/22 | 2:31:00 PM | Keita Martin messages Andrea Stevens: “Heading to Struhs now - Jason sent Dad a text saying he’s really struggling and is scared, despite much prayer. The prayer of the saints avails much :) And God won’t give Jason more than he can bare”. | Text message Exhibits 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | Andrea Stevens messages Keita Martin: “Not by might nor by power but my spirit this mountain shall be removed.” | Text message Exhibits 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) | |
| 4/01/22 | 2:57:00 PM | Andrea Stevens messages Samantha Schoenfisch: “Hi Sam, I’m not sure if anyone has contacted you - Jason and family are going through a trying time today regarding Elizabeth’s healing and we’re all in prayer for them. Jason is struggling at the moment and needs the prayer of the saints to strengthen his faith. Not by might nor by power but by my spirit, says the Lord, this mountain SHALL be removed. Thank you.” | Text message Exhibits 51, 58 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 3:03:00 PM | Samantha Schoenfisch messages Andrea Stevens: “Hi Andrea thanks for the update. We just had a prayer for Jason and will have some more prayer after lunch. Praise God Elizabeth IS healed!” | Text message Exhibits 51, 58 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 3:05:00 PM | Samantha Schoenfisch messages Jason Struhs: “Hi Jason we have just received a text from the Stevens saying that today has been a trying day. Praise the Lord we are praying for you and for God’s power and strength in you. Thank you for your encouragement and fellowship yesterday. Please let us know if we can support in any way other than prayer and we will be right on it. Praise God for His perfect healing that we will definitely see. Your sister in Christ Sam.” | Text message Exhibits 54, 58 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 3:08:00 PM | Therese Stevens messages Samantha Schoenfisch: “Hello! Hope you are all doing well. Praise the Lord!! We are praying and expect the Lord to work mightily once again with Elizabeth and Jason and family, as they all walk in faith. Same with you guys! Enjoy your afternoon. Love Thérèse.” | Text message Exhibits 57, | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 3:41:00 PM | Keita Martin messages Andrea Stevens: “Still encouraging. Keep praying, we've got to see this victory.” Andrea Stevens replies: “Absolutely.” | Text message Exhibits 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 4/01/22 | 4:14:00 PM | Therese Stevens messages Zachary, RNT and REK: “Just because we feel confusion or sadness or anxiety doesn’t mean God has failed. Our emotions fluctuate but God doesn’t. When we trust in him even when we can’t see the solution, that is when He can work! Be bold and encourage your Dad especially, show your affection towards him and the Lord will bless you. Our prayers are with you all!” | Text message Exhibits 57 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 4:27:00 PM | Kerrie Struhs messages Brendan Stevens: “Do you have Food drink suggestions at all? When nothing’s staying down?” | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | Brendan Stevens replies to Kerrie Struhs: “No Kerrie. Just sip water or grape juice. soft fruit”. | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) | |
| 4/01/22 | 5:09:00 PM | Keita Martin messages RNT: “Hello my dear, We know you’re strong in the Spirit! Just wanted to send an extra encouragement, even though we just left (tell [REK] too): Make sure you set it in your heart to put in your absolute best effort to declare and encourage like Brendan said. I know it might feel silly or sound ‘weird’ but that’s just the flesh - get out of your comfort zone and open your mouth and just say something, and then let the Spirit give you words. Don’t let it be that you let yourself stay quiet. You want to be able to say ‘yeah, I really overcame and did my best!’ at the end of the trial. Praise the Lord. Love your sister, closer than blood xxxxxx” | Text message Exhibits 56 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 5:14:00 PM | Brendan Stevens messages Jason and Kerrie Struhs: “Hi Jason and Kerrie if you are happy to do so we will all come around for a fellowship meeting this evening. We will come early and not stay too long. Maybe 6ish. No preparation needed.” Kerrie Struhs replies to Brendan Stevens: “Absolutely.” | Text message Exhibits 47 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 5:17:00 PM | Brendan Stevens messages Lachlan and Samantha Schoenfisch: “Hi Lachlan and Sam, would you be available for a fellowship meeting this evening?” and “I am still waiting for an answer from the Struhs.” | Text message Exhibits 45 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 5:21:00 PM | Brendan Stevens messages Kerrie Struhs: “Fantastic. See you soonish.” | Text message Exhibits 47 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 4/01/22 | 5:22:00 PM | Lachlan replies to Brendan Stevens: “Of Course. What time should we come over?” | Text message Exhibits 45 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 5:23:00 PM | Brendan Stevens messages Lachlan Schoenfisch: “We will go to Struhs by 6:30. They are needing good fellowship and encouragement.” | Text message Exhibits 45 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 5:27:00 PM | Lachlan Schoenfisch replies to Brendan Stevens: “See you then.” | Text message Exhibits 45 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 5:29:00 PM | Jason Struhs messages Samantha Schoenfisch: “Thank you Sam and Laughlin for your thoughts we all know she is healed and this is a trial to test us again but we are all stead fast in all of our beliefs god will never fail us he has promised amen.” | Text message Exhibits 58 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 5:30:22 PM | Samantha Schoenfisch messages Brendan Stevens: “Of course we would!” | Text message Exhibits 58 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 6:02:00 PM | White ute that it is alleged belongs to Brendan Stevens arrives at 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibits 36 & 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 6:05:00 PM | Brendan Stevens messages Lachlan Schoenfisch: “We are there now.” | Text message Exhibits 45 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 6:11:00 PM | A person whom is alleged to be Brendan Stevens is captured on CCTV footage walking away from 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 6:18:00 PM | Persons who are alleged to be Jason Struhs and Sebastian Stevens are captured on CCTV footage walking away from 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 6:27:00 PM | Persons who are alleged to be Jason Struhs, Brendan Stevens and Sebastian Stevens are captured on CCTV footage walking towards 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 4/01/22 | 6:34:00 PM | Silver car alleged to belong to Lachlan and Samantha Schoenfisch first captured on CCTV footage at 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 36 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 8:00:00 PM | Persons who are alleged to be the Stevens family and Lachlan and Samantha Schoenfisch are captured on CCTV footage leaving 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 4/01/22 | 9:37:00 PM | Kerrie Struhs messages Loretta Stevens: “Thanks so much for the extra fellowship tonight. It was so wonderful to hear Jason declare all the good things at bedtime prayer with the kids! Praise the Lord! I hope you were still able to thoroughly enjoy the birthday celebrations. Love and prayers to you all. Your sister, Kerrie”. | Text message Exhibits 52 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 8:46:00 AM | Kerrie Struhs messages Loretta Stevens: “Good morning Loretta. Would someone mind coming to help out? Especially spiritually. But physically too.” | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 8:53:00 AM | Kerrie Struhs messages Brendan Stevens: “Good morning Brendan. Could we have some spiritual and physical help today please?” | Text message Exhibit 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 8:53:00 AM | Brendan Stevens messages Kerrie Struhs: “Yes.” | Text message Exhibits 52 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 9:15:00 AM | Therese Stevens messages Jason Struhs: “Be strong and of good courage, be not afraid neither be dismayed - for the Lord, YOUR GOD is with you, wherever you go! We are already on the other side of death! Praise the Lord! We have already seen the mightiest miracle in you!” | Text message Exhibits 54 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 9:17:00 AM | Loretta Stevens messages Kerrie Struhs: “Sorry Kerrie .. we would love to come over .. I’ll update you just before we come.” | Text message Exhibits 52 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 9:19:00 AM | Jason Struhs replies to Therese Stevens: “Thank you my sister.” “Praise the lord.” | Text message Exhibits 54 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 5/01/22 | 9:45:00 AM | Sebastian Stevens messages Zachary Struhs: “The Fishies are headed your way.” | Text message Exhibits 53 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 9:56:00 AM | Jason Struhs messages Brendan Stevens: “Dear brother our thoughts and prayers are with you as we sit and wait for this amazing miracle that god will perform thank you for your presence at our house yesterday to pick me up when I needed it most. Then later when all of our saints gathered which was truly edifying for all so stay strong brother we are all in this together with our almighty god by our side praise the lord your brother Jason.” | Text message Exhibits 47, | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 10:06:00 AM | White ute that it is alleged belongs to Brendan Stevens is first captured on CCTV footage parked outside of 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 10:07:00 AM | Brendan Stevens messages Jason Struhs: “Thank you so much brother for your strengthening words. I can only apologise for my apparent weakness in my faith and I pray for strength. Your brother Brendan. I will see you soon.” | Text message Exhibits 47, 54 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 10:08:11 AM | Sebastian Stevens messages Brendan Stevens: “We are here. And so are the Schoenfisch’s. Jason is good too.” | Text message Exhibits 47 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 10:08:35 AM | Brendan Stevens messages Sebastian Stevens: “Thanks mate.” | Text message Exhibits 47 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 10:10:00 AM | Jason Struhs messages Brendan Stevens: “No need to apologize that’s why we are all here for one and another to lean on.” Brendan replies: “Amen.” | Text message Exhibits 47 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 10:34:00 AM | Silver wagon that is alleged to belong to the Stevens family is captured on CCTV parked out front of 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 3:58:00 PM | White ute that is alleged to belong to Brendan Stevens is no longer seen on CCTV footage to be out the front of 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 5/01/22 | 5:36:00 PM | White ute that is alleged to belong to Brendan Stevens is captured out the front of 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 36 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 5:50:00 PM | Three females alleged to be Andrea Stevens, Camellia Stevens and Acacia Stevens are captured by CCTV walking away from 5 Meredith Crescent (identities may be uncertain). | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 6:20:00 PM | Three females alleged to be Andrea Stevens, Camellia Stevens and Acacia Stevens and a male alleged to be Sebastian Stevens captured on CCTV footage walking back to 5 Meredith Crescent (identities may be uncertain). | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 6:41:00 PM | White ute that is alleged to belong to Brendan Stevens is no longer seen on CCTV footage to be out the front of 5 Meredith Crescent. Silver wagon that is alleged to belong to the Stevens family remains. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 8:11:00 PM | Silver hatchback that is alleged to belong to Lachlan and Samantha Schoenfisch is first captured on CCTV footage parked outside 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 10:50:00 PM | Sebastian Stevens messages Brendan Stevens: “Praise the Lord Dad, we have endured another day. Have a peaceful sleep knowing that you have sought the Lord in your time of trial and have declared His truth boldly in front of the saints. As we draw nigh to Him He will draw nigh to us. We are both one day nearer the end of Elizabeth’s sickness and one day nearer the Lord’s return. The road is narrow and there are few that follow but when He returns He will find faith in Israel. Goodnight and God Bless. Peace, Healing and Comfort are your birthright so take them all.” | Text message Exhibits 47 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 5/01/22 | 10:51:00 PM | Brendan Stevens messages Sebastian Stevens: “Thank you son. God bless and Amen.” | Text message Exhibits 47 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 8:41:00 AM | Loretta Stevens messages Andrea Stevens: “Hi Andrea .. how was your night? How is Elizabeth? Praise God.” | Text message Exhibits 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 8:44:00 AM | Andrea Stevens messages Loretta Stevens: “Hi Mum! Pretty good - we took shifts and I’m. It feeling too bad now but will probably be tired later. Still quiet here. Thérèse is sleeping. Elizabeth hasn’t been sick since when you were here last night. She was going to the toilet fairly regularly last night and in early hours became a bit restless but at the moment she’s still sleeping - tossing. Praise God. We’re just waiting with patience, expecting what God has promised. No fear!! How is it there?” Loretta responds by “loving” the message. | Text message Exhibits 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 6/01/22 | 9:00:00 AM | Acacia Stevens messages Andrea Stevens: “Hello! How is it?” | Text message Exhibits 46, 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 9:02:00 AM | Andrea Stevens messages Acacia Stevens: “Hiya. She’s still restless. Nothing to worry about though.” | Text message Exhibits 46, | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | Acacia Stevens messages Andrea Stevens: “Ok. We kids are on our way soon. Need anything?” | Text message Exhibits 46, 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) | |
| 6/01/22 | Andrea Stevens messages Acacia Stevens: “Ok well Zac would like a bucket of honey if that’s convenient. For the family - haha. Thérèse is still sleeping. Household is still in waking up breakfast mode.” | Text message Exhibits 46, 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) | |
| 6/01/22 | 9:04:00 AM | Loretta Stevens messages Andrea Stevens: “Thanks Andrea. We’re pretty good. All the kids are up preparing to go soon. Dad and I will come a bit later. [EDB] and I have a little headache but not too bad. Praise God for Elizabeth’s news. That is so good to hear. We certainly do look forward to her manifest recovery. Praise God, and see you soon.” | Text message Exhibits 46, 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 9:07:00 AM | Andrea Stevens messages Acacia Stevens: “Yep. Will be tired later.” | Text message Exhibits 46, 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 9:09:00 AM | Acacia Stevens messages Andrea Stevens: “Haha yep. We’ll take over.” | Text message Exhibits 46, 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 9:09:00 AM | Andrea Stevens messages Loretta Stevens: “Amen. Praise God. Thérèse has had a bit of a headache during the night as well. Tell Dad not to worry. Let the spirit of the Lord saturate his soul. Be still and let God love him.” | Text message Exhibits 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 9:31:00 AM | Silver hatchback that is alleged to belong to Lachlan and Samantha Schoenfisch is first captured on CCTV footage parked outside 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 6/01/22 | 9:44:00 AM | White ute that is alleged to belong to Brendan Stevens is first captured on CCTV footage parked outside of 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 10:33:00 AM | Alexander Stevens messages Brendan Stevens: “You couldn’t even pick out a single human in that small landscape, let alone some little sickness inside them! And God hardly bothers to mention the enormous and endless terrain he’s created, but chooses instead to focus on us little humans and the truth and promises he has for us! Puts in in perspective don’t you think?” Brendan Stevens replies: “Yes indeed mate. Praise God. We are on our way.” | Text message Exhibits 47, | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 12:10:00 PM | Silver wagon that is alleged to belong to Stevens Family first captured on CCTV footage parked outside of 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 5005_14 - 12:51:40 PM 5005_10 - 12:51:42 PM 5005_4 - 12:51:45 PM 5005_2 - 12:51:47 PM 5005_7 - 12:51:49 PM 5005_13 - 12:51:52 PM 5005_12 - 2:26:46 PM 5005 - 2:26:48 PM 5005_9 - 7:10:44 PM | Acacia Stevens starts taking photographs of the fellowship at Meredith Crescent. | Photograph Exhibit 46 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 2:55:00 PM | Brendan Stevens messages Lachlan Schoenfisch: “Hi Lachlan and Sam, Loretta and I have also headed home for a rest and to cook dinner. We intend to be back there by 6:00 at the latest. There is no need for you to bring anything except your good words of faith and encouragement. Praise God for His glorious power in our lives. See you then. Brendan.” | Text message Exhibits 47 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| 6/01/22 | 5:10:00 PM | Persons alleged to be Andrea Stevens, Acacia Stevens, Therese Stevens, Camellia Stevens, Kerrie Struhs and Zachary Struhs are captured on CCTV footage walking along Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 5:23:00 PM | Loretta Stevens messages Andrea Stevens: “Running a bit late preparing dinner - Beef Teriyaki, but hopefully over there by 6.30.” | Text message Exhibits 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | Andrea Stevens messages Loretta Stevens: “Ok no problem. We’re out for a walk.” | Text message Exhibits 51 | All (except Jason Struhs) | |
| 6/01/22 | Loretta Stevens messages Andrea Stevens: “Cool, see you later!” | Text message Exhibits 51 & 60 | All (except Jason Struhs) | |
| 6/01/22 | 5:57:00 PM | White ute that is alleged to belong to Brendan Stevens is no longer parked out the front of 5 Meredith Crescent. Silver hatchback that is alleged to belong to Lachlan and Samantha Schoenfisch is now parked out the front of 5 Meredith Crescent. | CCTV footage Exhibit 36 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | 6:17:00 PM | Two females alleged to be defendants in the Stevens family and one male alleged to be Alexander Stevens are captured on CCTV footage leaving 5 Meredith Crescent. Two young children are with them. | CCTV footage Exhibit 73 | All (except Jason Struhs) |
| 6/01/22 | Sebastian, Acacia and Camellia provide care for Elizabeth during the night. Jason and Kerrie slept upstairs in their own bed. | Statement Exhibits 66 | All (except Jason Struhs) | |
| 8/01/22 | 9:31:00 PM | Detective Acting Sergeant Melissah Rose conducts s 93A interview with REK. REK told the police the following: - our family took Elizabeth off insulin because we know that God heals -we saw the miracle on Monday that her numbers were back down to normal but Elizabeth began to feel unwell on Tuesday - after Elizabeth returned from hospital on the first occasion she was sick, their father would look after her medical needs - no one else in the family would assist because they all believe in the healing power of God - their mother tried to speak to their father a few times about what they believe in but he did not want to hear it - while their mother was in jail following her conviction for failing to provide the necessaries of life, their father asked Zach for help and so they offered him God and he came to the Lord - when their mother was released from prison their father continued to give Elizabeth the insulin but after a while and after a bit of encouragement he started to “lessen off a bit” | Police investiga- tion Exhibit 66 | All (except Jason Struhs and, in the case of Lachlan and Samantha Schoenfisch, only acts or statements occurring on or after 23 September 2021 are admissible against them) |
| Date | Time | Event | Source | Admissible against? |
| - they encouraged their father by telling him that God heals - their father was encouraged by them and their church friends, the Stevens family - their father started asking for a reading of Elizabeth's levels not as frequently and didn’t always give her insulin after eating - their father started changing how he treated Elizabeth after their mother was released from jail but maybe even a bit before she was released - their father then decided to take a step in faith and moved away all together from administering insulin - their father declared at church on Sunday that he knew that God had promised healing and would stop giving Elizabeth insulin - each member of her family, the Stevens family and the Schoenfisch family were present when he made the declaration - on the Sunday night Elizabeth was only given the blue needle to carry her through the night. The next morning she was at normal numbers which was a miracle - the next day their father told them that he would not be giving Elizabeth any insulin - their father came downstairs because he was meant to tell Elizabeth not to take her test but he forgot and the result was that she was normal - on Monday Elizabeth was fine, she was happy and playing with them. The Schoenfischs came over - on Tuesday Elizabeth was feeling unwell. She was not keeping much down. Their mother was looking after her - Elizabeth said that she felt sick and she didn't seem happy - the Schoenfischs and the Stevens came over to help with cleaning around the house - on Wednesday Elizabeth was about the same. She slept for most of the day. She stopped vomiting after lunch. She was not talking much and when she did her words were slurred. She was unconscious most of the time and really weak - that night both the Stevens and Schoenfisch families stayed for dinner - Elizabeth had an episode of incontinence that night - on Thursday both the Stevens and Schoenfisch families returned to their house. Elizabeth was the same as the day before. We just kept encouraging each other with the words of God. The other families were helping them do dishes and make meals - thought she was getting better on Thursday night because she was eating more. She was not any worse - Acacia, Camellia and Sebastian Stevens stayed Thursday night. Elizabeth said that she had sore sides from being sick. Had seen her being sick about ten times. |
0
96
3