In a landmark case that has shaken the Australian religious community, 14 members of a religious group, known as “The Saints,” were found guilty of manslaughter following the tragic death of eight-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs. The Queensland Supreme Court’s verdict on January 31, 2025, brought to light the deeply troubling events surrounding the child’s death, which occurred on January 7, 2022, in the town of Toowoomba, Queensland.
Elizabeth’s death came after her parents, Jason and Kerrie Struhs, deliberately withheld her insulin medication for six days, leading to fatal complications from type-1 diabetes. Both parents, along with 12 other members of their religious congregation, were convicted by Justice Martin Burns, who described their actions as “an egregious departure from the standard of care” expected in the treatment of a child with a life-threatening condition.
Parents and Religious Leader Found Guilty
The 53-year-old father, Jason Struhs, and the 63-year-old leader of “The Saints,” Brendan Luke Stevens, were initially charged with murder but were ultimately convicted of manslaughter after the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove they acted with “reckless indifference to life.”
Justice Burns explained that there was a reasonable possibility that, within the insular environment of the church, Jason Struhs may not have fully realized the severity of his daughter’s condition. However, he clarified that both Struhs and Stevens had failed to provide the necessary care for Elizabeth, allowing her to go without insulin for a prolonged period.
Burns also addressed the culpability of the other 12 members, who, including Elizabeth’s older brother, 22-year-old Zachary Alan Struhs, were found to have provided varying degrees of support and encouragement for the actions that led to Elizabeth’s death. Despite their defense that they believed God would heal the child, the judge emphasized that their collective inaction contributed to a fatal outcome.
Religious Group’s Defense and Impact on Sentencing
During the trial, Stevens and the other defendants claimed that their religious beliefs led them to reject medical treatment in favor of divine healing. They insisted that they were guided by faith and did not intend for Elizabeth to die. Each member of the group, including Jason Struhs, chose to represent themselves in court and made personal statements during closing arguments.
The court acknowledged the religious convictions of the accused but ultimately found that these beliefs did not absolve them from the legal responsibility of providing medical care for a child in need. Justice Burns stated that while the group’s belief in divine intervention could be considered in their defense, it could not excuse the extreme neglect that led to Elizabeth’s death.
In a dramatic twist, the court rejected the murder charges, stating that there was not enough evidence to suggest that the accused had acted with malice aforethought or a direct intent to kill Elizabeth. Despite this, the manslaughter convictions carry significant penalties, with each defendant facing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Victim’s Family Speaks Out
After the verdict, Elizabeth’s adult sister, Jayde Struhs, publicly expressed her relief but also criticized the authorities for not intervening earlier to protect her sister. “Although we had a good outcome today, I have to acknowledge the system failed to protect Elizabeth in the first place,” she said, her voice thick with emotion.
Jayde went on to question the role of social services and law enforcement, who, despite being aware of the family’s religious practices, failed to take action to remove Elizabeth from what she described as a “credibly unsafe situation.” She emphasized the need for systemic change to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future.
“We are only here today because more wasn’t done sooner to protect her or remove her from a credibly unsafe situation in her own home,” she added.
The Role of Religious Beliefs in Legal Proceedings
The case has sparked intense debate on the intersection of religious freedom and child protection laws in Australia. Critics of the verdict argue that the ruling does not go far enough in addressing the dangers posed by extremist religious groups that prioritize faith healing over medical intervention.
Experts in child protection law have raised concerns about the implications of the court’s decision to consider the religious beliefs of the accused as a mitigating factor in sentencing. While the court ruled out murder charges, some advocates for children’s rights believe that the system should have done more to intervene in the family’s beliefs before a tragedy occurred.
In the wake of the trial, religious leaders and child welfare advocates have called for clearer guidelines on the responsibility of parents and religious groups to ensure the health and well-being of children under their care. Calls for stricter laws to protect children from similar situations have intensified, with some suggesting that more proactive measures should be taken to prevent children from being exposed to harmful religious practices.
The Convicts Await Sentencing
As the legal proceedings continue, the 14 convicted individuals are currently remanded in custody, with their sentencing hearing scheduled for February 11, 2025. The potential for life sentences has left many wondering about the future of these religious practices and the broader issue of how the law addresses the balance between religious freedom and child welfare.
Outside the courthouse, the Struhs family and the wider community have expressed a mixture of sorrow and relief. While justice has been served, the deep emotional wounds left by the death of Elizabeth Rose Struhs will continue to affect her loved ones for years to come.
The case has raised difficult questions about the responsibility of religious groups in Australia and their role in the care of vulnerable children. It also serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of unchecked religious extremism and the importance of safeguarding children from harm.
As the sentencing date approaches, the Struhs family and the public continue to seek closure, hoping that the legal system’s response to this tragedy will lead to meaningful change in both the religious and child protection sectors.
