R v Struhs - [2023] QSCPR 19

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Struhs & Ors [2023] QSCPR 19
PARTIES: THE KING
(applicant)
v
JASON RICHARD STRUHS, BRENDAN LUKE
STEVENS, KERRIE ELIZABETH STRUHS,
ZACHARY ALAN STRUHS, LORETTA MARY
STEVENS, THERESE MARIA STEVENS, ANDREA
LOUSIE STEVENS, ACACIA NAREE STEVENS,
CAMELLIA CLAIRE STEVENS, ALEXANDER
FRANCIS STEVENS, SEBASTIAN JAMES STEVENS,
KEITA COURTNEY MARTIN, LACHLAN STUART
SCHOENFISCH and SAMANTHA EMILY
SCHOENFISCH
(respondents)
FILE NO/S: Indictment No 350 of 2023
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Application under s 590AA(2)(da) of the Criminal Code
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 27 November 2023, ex tempore
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 27 November 2023
JUDGE: Bowskill CJ
ORDERS: The Court orders, pursuant to s 614(1) of the Criminal Code, that all the defendants be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – GENERALLY – where the 14 accused persons are charged on indictment with murder or manslaughter – where the accused persons are self-represented and have expressed a desire for the charge against each of them to be heard together – whether the identity of the trial judge is known – where the Crown applies for a no jury order under s 614 of the Criminal Code, on the basis that there are special reasons warranting such an order, including the expected length of the trial, legal and logistical complexity, to avoid delay and in light of extensive pre-trial publicity and media reporting – whether it is in the interests of justice that a no jury
order be made – whether there are special reasons for making
a no jury order
Criminal Code, s 604, s 614, s 615, s 615A
Mickelberg v The Queen (No 3) (1992) 8 WAR 236, cited
R v Pentland (2020) 4 QR 340; [2020] QSC 78, cited
R v Prisk and Harris [2009] QSC 315, cited
COUNSEL: T Fuller KC for the applicant
The respondents appeared on their own behalf
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the applicant
The respondents appeared on their own behalf

The defendants are jointly charged on indictment 350 of 2023 with offences arising from the death on 7 January 2022 of a child, Elizabeth Struhs. They are all members of a religious group known as The Saints. One of the defendants, Brendan Stevens, was at the relevant time the leader of The Saints.
Jason Struhs is Elizabeth’s father. He is charged with her murder on the basis that he caused the death of Elizabeth by failing to provide insulin to her and/or not providing medical care and treatment for her, knowing that would probably cause her death.
Kerrie Struhs is Elizabeth’s mother. She is charged with manslaughter on the basis that she failed to provide insulin to Elizabeth and/or did not provide medical care and treatment for her.
Brendan Stevens is charged with the murder of Elizabeth on the basis that he counselled either or both Jason Struhs and Kerrie Struhs to…

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

Details

AGLC: R v Struhs [2023] QSCPR 19
Case: [2023] QSCPR 19
Decision Date: 27 November 2023, ex tempore

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Struhs, the defendants faced charges of murder or manslaughter. The accused persons, fourteen in total, were self-represented and had expressed a collective desire for their charges to be heard jointly. The Crown sought a no jury order under section 614 of the Criminal Code, arguing that special reasons justified this course of action, including the anticipated length and complexity of the trial, the need to avoid delays, and the extensive pre-trial publicity and media coverage surrounding the case. The court had to determine whether conducting the trial before a judge without a jury would be in the interests of justice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to proceed with a judge-alone trial under section 614 of the Criminal Code. This section allows for such an order when there are special reasons that make a jury trial inappropriate. The court considered factors such as the expected length of the trial, the legal and logistical complexities involved, the potential for delay, and the impact of extensive pre-trial publicity on the fairness of the proceedings. The defendants' right to a jury trial, as guaranteed by the common law and statute, was also a significant consideration.

The court found that the special reasons cited by the Crown were compelling. It determined that the expected length and complexity of the trial, combined with the potential for delays and the extensive pre-trial publicity, justified a no jury order. The court concluded that a judge-alone trial was in the interests of justice to ensure a fair trial for all parties involved. Consequently, the court ordered that all defendants be tried by a judge sitting without a jury, in accordance with section 614(1) of the Criminal Code.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders, pursuant to s 614(1) of the Criminal Code, that all the defendants be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Struhs & Ors [2023] QSCPR 19
PARTIES:	THE KING (applicant) v JASON RICHARD STRUHS, BRENDAN LUKE STEVENS, KERRIE ELIZABETH STRUHS, ZACHARY ALAN STRUHS, LORETTA MARY STEVENS, THERESE MARIA STEVENS, ANDREA LOUSIE STEVENS, ACACIA NAREE STEVENS, CAMELLIA CLAIRE STEVENS, ALEXANDER FRANCIS STEVENS, SEBASTIAN JAMES STEVENS, KEITA COURTNEY MARTIN, LACHLAN STUART SCHOENFISCH and SAMANTHA EMILY SCHOENFISCH (respondents)
FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 350 of 2023
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application under s 590AA(2)(da) of the Criminal Code
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 November 2023, ex tempore
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 November 2023
JUDGE:	Bowskill CJ
ORDERS:	The Court orders, pursuant to s 614(1) of the Criminal Code, that all the defendants be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – GENERALLY – where the 14 accused persons are charged on indictment with murder or manslaughter – where the accused persons are self-represented and have expressed a desire for the charge against each of them to be heard together – whether the identity of the trial judge is known – where the Crown applies for a no jury order under s 614 of the Criminal Code, on the basis that there are special reasons warranting such an order, including the expected length of the trial, legal and logistical complexity, to avoid delay and in light of extensive pre-trial publicity and media reporting – whether it is in the interests of justice that a no jury
order be made – whether there are special reasons for making a no jury order
Criminal Code, s 604, s 614, s 615, s 615A
Mickelberg v The Queen (No 3) (1992) 8 WAR 236, cited R v Pentland (2020) 4 QR 340; [2020] QSC 78, cited R v Prisk and Harris [2009] QSC 315, cited
COUNSEL:	T Fuller KC for the applicant The respondents appeared on their own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the applicant The respondents appeared on their own behalf