Members of an Australian religious group have gone on trial accused of killing an eight-year-old diabetic girl by denying her medical care and offering prayer instead.
Elizabeth Struhs was found dead at a home in Toowoomba - about 125km (78 mi) west of Brisbane - in January 2022, after she had allegedly gone without insulin for several days.
Prosecutors say the sect shunned the use of medicine and trusted God to “heal” the child - “extreme beliefs” which had already almost ended Elizabeth’s life in similar circumstances three years before.
The girl’s parents are among the 14 defendants, all of whom have refused lawyers.
No jury? RICO on the whole religious group instead of just the parents and maybe religious leader? Australia is going down the gutter.
To my understanding, Trial by Judge Alone is allowed in part of Australia to protect defendants from jury bias in high-profile cases. Since it is designed to protect the defendant, the defendant has quite a lot of power to oppose that and request a trial by Jury. It doesn’t look possible for a Defendant to demand a Jury and be denied, especially if they had their lawyer in their side, as it would imply bias by the court against the defendant.
With 14 defendants, all refusing legal representation, I don’t think any of the accused are smart enough to survive even the most fair legal system.
A Jury trial can also be denied for reasons of national security.
That’s troubling, but I don’t think it applies here? If it does, I have further questions!
Not applicable to this case but I was just adding to circumstances where a jury may not be required/allowed in Australia
Like with the Witness K/Collaery cases where some of the trials happened in secret, and the appeals court found that the national security concern was basically bullshit, at least in Collaery’s case:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/06/witness-ks-lawyer-wins-transparency-ruling-as-court-cites-need-to-deter-political-prosecutions
I’m glad something good came of that but it shows how easily the national security angle can be abused. We just started normalising government secrecy after WWII and it’s only gotten worse since. Nobody would’ve accepted “national security” as an excuse for this sort of flagrant abuse prior to that.