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)
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…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Struhs
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Struhs [2025] QSC 10
Case
[2025] QSC 10
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Struhs involved a number of defendants who were members of a religious group that believed in the healing power of God and did not resort to medical care. The defendants were charged with offences relating to the death of a child who had Type 1 diabetes, and who died from diabetic ketoacidosis after insulin was withheld. The father of the child was charged with murder, while the mother and other members of the group were charged with manslaughter and being party to manslaughter. The case was heard by a judge sitting without a jury.
The legal issues before the court included whether the defendants had a duty to provide medical care to the child and whether they breached that duty by failing to provide insulin and/or medical care, and if their failure to provide care was unlawful. The court also had to consider whether the father's failure to provide insulin and/or medical care was done with reckless indifference to the child's life, and whether the mother and other defendants were criminally responsible for the child's death.
The court found that the father had a duty to provide medical care to the child and that his failure to provide insulin and/or medical care was unlawful. However, the court was not satisfied that the father knew that his failure to provide insulin and/or medical care would probably cause the child's death, and therefore found him not guilty of murder. The court found that the mother and other defendants were also criminally responsible for the child's death, and convicted them of manslaughter and being party to manslaughter.
The court ordered that the father be sentenced for manslaughter, while the mother and other defendants were sentenced for being party to manslaughter. The sentences imposed reflected the gravity of the offences and the defendants' roles in the child's death.