CASE: R v Struhs & Ors [2025] QSC 10

WARNING: disturbing content.

8-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs died on 7 Jan 2022 and her death was entirely preventable. Elizabeth was a diabetic and for two years, her condition had been managed and treated with insulin.

That all ended on 3 January 2022 when the decision was made to not give Elizabeth insulin ever again. That decision was made by her parents, with their support of their small home-based religious congregation.

This case will be covered in 5 parts.

In PART 1 you will be introduced to the members of The Saints, a conservative home-based religious group that rejected all medical treatment.

In PART 2 we will look at the events in July 2019 when young Elizabeth Struhs was diagnosed with diabetes. Kerrie, who was a devoted member of The Saints refused to seek medical care for her critically ill daughter.

In PART 3 we look at the first hearing in which Elizabeth's parents are charged with failure to provide their daughter with the necessaries of life, almost resulting in her death.

In PART 4 we will follow the changes in the Struhs family and the campaign of the collective members of The Saints to see that Elizabeth be taken off insulin, a campaign that would lead to Elizabeths death.

In PART 5, our final part, you will hear about the criminal trial of all 14 members of The Saints charged with manslaughter in relation to the unlawful death of Elizabeth Struhs.

NOTE: Voices of the parties have been produced by AI voice generation and are not the real voices of the parties.

CASE: R v Struhs & Ors [2025] QSC 10

WARNING: disturbing content.

8-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs died on 7 Jan 2022 and her death was entirely preventable. Elizabeth was a diabetic and for two years, her condition had been managed and treated with insulin.

That all ended on 3 January 2022 when the decision was made to not give Elizabeth insulin ever again. That decision was made by her parents, with their support of their small home-based religious congregation.

This case will be covered in 5 parts.

In PART 1 you will be introduced to the members of The Saints, a conservative home-based religious group that rejected all medical treatment.

In PART 2 we will look at the events in July 2019 when young Elizabeth Struhs was diagnosed with diabetes. Kerrie, who was a devoted member of The Saints refused to seek medical care for her critically ill daughter.

In PART 3 we look at the first hearing in which Elizabeth's parents are charged with failure to provide their daughter with the necessaries of life, almost resulting in her death.

In PART 4 we will follow the changes in the Struhs family and the campaign of the collective members of The Saints to see that Elizabeth be taken off insulin, a campaign that would lead to Elizabeths death.

In PART 5, our final part, you will hear about the criminal trial of all 14 members of The Saints charged with manslaughter in relation to the unlawful death of Elizabeth Struhs.

NOTE: Voices of the parties have been produced by AI voice generation and are not the real voices of the parties.

CASE: R v Struhs & Ors [2025] QSC 10

WARNING: disturbing content.

8-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs died on 7 Jan 2022 and her death was entirely preventable. Elizabeth was a diabetic and for two years, her condition had been managed and treated with insulin.

That all ended on 3 January 2022 when the decision was made to not give Elizabeth insulin ever again. That decision was made by her parents, with their support of their small home-based religious congregation.

This case will be covered in 5 parts.

In PART 1 you will be introduced to the members of The Saints, a conservative home-based religious group that rejected all medical treatment.

In PART 2 we will look at the events in July 2019 when young Elizabeth Struhs was diagnosed with diabetes. Kerrie, who was a devoted member of The Saints refused to seek medical care for her critically ill daughter.

In PART 3 we look at the first hearing in which Elizabeth's parents are charged with failure to provide their daughter with the necessaries of life, almost resulting in her death.

In PART 4 we will follow the changes in the Struhs family and the campaign of the collective members of The Saints to see that Elizabeth be taken off insulin, a campaign that would lead to Elizabeths death.

In PART 5, our final part, you will hear about the criminal trial of all 14 members of The Saints charged with manslaughter in relation to the unlawful death of Elizabeth Struhs.

NOTE: Voices of the parties have been produced by AI voice generation and are not the real voices of the parties.

CASE: R v Toby McVoy [2024] NSWDC 534

WARNING: Disturbing content

Toby McVoy was sentenced to 3 years and 2 months imprisonment for domestic violence offences against his former partner, referred to only as "XP".

McVoy appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was too severe.

His new partner "M" gave evidence on his behalf, seeking to have McVoy released earlier; she was pregnant with his child which they wanted to raise together.

McVoy stated that he would be willing to do counselling for anger management and domestic violence.

However, DCJ Wass took note of McVoy's history of previous DV offences and stated that:

"He offends against women when he is in relationships. He offends against women even when he is engaging in highly intimate acts with them, presumably done as some act or love or at least affection. He offends against women when he does not get what he wants. He offends against women in order to humiliate, intimidate and embarrass them."

His appeal was denied.

CASE: Simpson v Hodges [2007] NSWSC 1230

Pamela Amy Simpson died on 14 July 2004. She was survived by her two children: a son named Howard Collins Newby Simpson, and a daughter named Shelley Emma Elizabeth Hodges. Unfortunately, Pamela’s death kicked-off many used of litigation between her two children.

Eight months before Pamela's death, $200,000 was transferred from her bank account to her daughter Shelley's account. Shelley claimed that it was a gift; a contribution to the costs of renovating Shelley's house for Pamela to live in.

Howard alleged that Shelley had taken the money without their mother's knowledge or consent. But could he prove it?

CASE: Seymour v Seymour [2024] NSWSC 699

WARNING: disturbing content; DV.

In 1971, Terence Seymour became the father to a little boy named Mark Seymour. 3 years later, Terence left his family and had little contact with his son after that.

Fast forward to 1991 and Terence married Helen Mary Seymour. He was still married to Helen at the date of his death 31 years later in July 2022.

3 weeks before he died, Terence had made his last Will that left his entire estate to Helen.

Mark made an application seeking provision from his late father's estate.

What responsibility did Terence have to provide for the son he had left behind?

CASE: QZH [2023] NSWCATGD 21

The pseudonyms:

QZH (the person of interest): "Q" or "the father"

UBH (spouse): "U-B" or "the mother"

KAH (son, applicant): "KAH" or "the good son"

OYH (son, attorney/guardian): "OYAH" or "the other son"

In this case, we have an adult son (referred to as OYH) who has moved back in with his parents. All of his possessions cluttered up the house, to the extent that his parents (both in their 80s) were forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor.

The other son (referred to as KAH) was concerned that his parents were not receiving adequate care at home. He was also concerned because OYH was appointed as attorney and guardian for their parents, and KAH did not believe that OYH was acting in their best interests.

During the time that OYH was living with the parents, the parent's net worth dropped by about $1,250,000.

He applied to the Tribunal to have OYH removed.

CASE: Schnur & Urbina [2024] FedCFamC1F 374; Kleid v Schnur [2024] FedCFamC1A 236

In April 2024, a family law parenting matter was derailed on the 1st day of trial due to the conduct of the mother's barrister.

The barrister, referred to as Mr B, admitted to not having read all the case materials, to scheduling another court appearance on the same day as the 1st day of trial, and was later discovered not to be eligible to appear in a Federal Court.

This decision related to the father's application for Mr B to be liable for the father's wasted legal costs.

But at the heart of it, the case demonstrates the immense faith and reliance both the client and the Court places in legal representatives to know not only the relevant law, but also the legal processes, and to contribute to a just and effective legal system.

CASE: Fenwick, Re; Application of J.R. Fenwick & Re Charles [2009] NSWSC 530

WARNING: Disturbing content; child abuse

In this 2009 decision, Justice Palmer compared two different applications for a Court made Will (known as a Statutory Will).

Robert Fenwick had made a Will in 1987. Ten years later, he suffered a severe head injury at work which resulted in permanent cognitive impairment.

It was likely that the beneficiaries in his 1987 would die before him, causing an intestacy and Robert's more than $2million estate passing to the State government. To avoid that, Robert's brother John applied for a Statutory Will that would result in Robert's estate passing to his cousin's children.

The other application was in relation to an 11-year-old child who was given the pseudonym of Charles. Charles had suffered severe and irreversible brain damage when he was 4 months old. His medical condition also meant that he had a diminished life expectancy.

Charles received a victim's compensation payment which was managed by the Public Trustee on his behalf.

Charles was going to die intestate (without a Will), which was likely to result in his estate passing to his parents. Yet it was his parents who were suspected of having caused Charles' injuries when he was 4 months old.

The Public Trustee applied for a Statutory Will to be made for Charles that would leave his estate to his sister.

These differing applications were used as an opportunity to assess the approach of the Court to Statutory Will applications.

Justice Palmer was critical of the approach at the time to engage in what he referred to as a "fictitious test" whereby the Court pretended that the incapacitated person did have capacity in order to determine what Will that person would make.

Instead, he adopted this this test: is there a fairly good chance that a reasonable person, faced with these circumstances, would execute the Will that is proposed?

CASE: Allan v Dobbins & Ors [2024] QDC 169

When David Allan died on 14 June 2020, his Will left most of his estate to 3 of his 7 adult children.

Of the remaining 4 children, 3 were left with a mere $50 each and the last - Noel - was left nothing.

For decades, Noel had worked the family farm and been in partnership with his parents. But the partnership ended in 1998 when Noel threatened to shoot his father.

Noel walked away from the partnership with one-third of the family farm.

In David's Will, he expressly stated that he made no provision for Noel because Noel had received enough already.

Noel applied for further provision from the estate. Although he did not fully disclose his financial circumstances, it was determined that he was worse off financially then the three siblings set to inherit the majority of the estate.

Justice Allen determined that:

"The Court is not, on the evidence, in a position to gainsay the view of the testator... that the applicant had received "more than his fair share" of the estate during the testator's lifetime..."

Noel's application was dismissed.