Is a Belief in God Now Incorporated Into the Subjective Test for Murder by Reckless Indifference to Human Life Following The King v Struhs?

In an earlier article in this journal, the author posed the question of whether leaving God to make the choice was an answer to a charge of murder by reckless indifference to human life. The earlier article explored the ramifications of importing into s 302(1)(aa) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) the common law subjective test for reckless murder of an act or omission committed with an awareness that death would probably arise from that act or omission, where the defendant’s awareness is affected by a religious belief that his or her religious faith required God to make the decision of life or death. In the wake of the not guilty of murder verdict handed down in a bench trial by Justice Martin Burns in The King v Struhs [2025] QSC 10, where his Honour found there was a reasonable possibility Jason Struhs never came to a full realisation his eight-year old daughter Elizabeth would probably die from his withdrawal of her insulin because, in the cloistered atmosphere of the Church which enveloped him, Jason Struhs believed instead God would not allow that to happen, it is timely to revisit the common law subjective test for reckless murder. In this article, the author respectfully contends that the judgment of Burns J is so narrow and restrictive in its interpretation of awareness, given the slow and agonising death Elizabeth suffered over five days as her body collapsed under diabetic ketoacidosis, as to effectively equate intention in s 302(1)(a) with recklessness in s 302(1)(aa), thereby rendering s 302(1)(aa) otiose. The author further argues that the precedent set by Burns J in The King v Struhs, in incorporating a belief in a God into the subjective test for murder by reckless indifference to human life, should be statutorily overruled through the adoption of an objective test of recklessness which would legislatively establish a clear divide between intention and reckless indifference to human life.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australian Journal of Law and Religion
Published
2026-04-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.55803/z549o
Primary Topic
Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is a Belief in God Now Incorporated Into the Subjective Test for Murder by Reckless Indifference to Human Life Following The King v Struhs?

Andrew Hemming
Australian Journal of Law and Religion
Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies
article

Is a Belief in God Now Incorporated Into the Subjective Test for Murder by Reckless Indifference to Human Life Following The King v Struhs?

Andrew Hemming
article en

Abstract

In an earlier article in this journal, the author posed the question of whether leaving God to make the choice was an answer to a charge of murder by reckless indifference to human life. The earlier article explored the ramifications of importing into s 302(1)(aa) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) the common law subjective test for reckless murder of an act or omission committed with an awareness that death would probably arise from that act or omission, where the defendant’s awareness is affected by a religious belief that his or her religious faith required God to make the decision of life or death. In the wake of the not guilty of murder verdict handed down in a bench trial by Justice Martin Burns in The King v Struhs [2025] QSC 10, where his Honour found there was a reasonable possibility Jason Struhs never came to a full realisation his eight-year old daughter Elizabeth would probably die from his withdrawal of her insulin because, in the cloistered atmosphere of the Church which enveloped him, Jason Struhs believed instead God would not allow that to happen, it is timely to revisit the common law subjective test for reckless murder. In this article, the author respectfully contends that the judgment of Burns J is so narrow and restrictive in its interpretation of awareness, given the slow and agonising death Elizabeth suffered over five days as her body collapsed under diabetic ketoacidosis, as to effectively equate intention in s 302(1)(a) with recklessness in s 302(1)(aa), thereby rendering s 302(1)(aa) otiose. The author further argues that the precedent set by Burns J in The King v Struhs, in incorporating a belief in a God into the subjective test for murder by reckless indifference to human life, should be statutorily overruled through the adoption of an objective test of recklessness which would legislatively establish a clear divide between intention and reckless indifference to human life.

Australian Journal of Law and ReligionVol. 7
University of Southern Queensland (AU)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Is a Belief in God Now Incorporated Into the Subjective Test for Murder by Reckless Indifference to Human Life Following The King v Struhs? — Andrew Hemming · Australian Journal of Law and Religion (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS