Judith Ann Schulz granted appeal after stalking conviction

A working political relationship that publicly soured before turning allegedly criminal will be played out in a brand new trial.

A South Burnett woman who was jailed for stalking a former councillor had her conviction overturned after it was found a jury member was dismissed incorrectly. Picture: Facebook

A South Burnett woman who was jailed for stalking a former councillor has had her conviction overturned after it was found a jury member was dismissed incorrectly.

Judith Ann Schulz, 61, was convicted of two counts of stalking former South Burnett councillor Scott Henschen in a Brisbane court on December 9, 2024.

Her legal team has since successfully appealed the conviction, with court documents revealing the juror who was dismissed for apparent bias should not have been let go.

Previous reporting revealed Ms Schulz was Mr Henschen’s political campaign manager in 2020, but their relationship fell apart in a public fashion, their dispute playing out on social media over several months.

Campaign manager Judith Ann Schulz (left) was charged with stalking and attempting to extort her former client, Scott Henschen (right). Picture: Facebook

In May 2021, Ms Schulz was arrested and charged with one count of stalking and two counts of extortion.

In court, police alleged she engaged in targeted abuse and harassment of Mr Henschen from March 2020, reportedly using different names in a “relentless style of offending”.

At the same time, the court heard Ms Schulz lodged several complaints against Mr Henschen and the council, and tried to have a Peace and Good Behaviour Order made against him, which was denied.

It heard she went near his home and other places where he was, and posted offensive material online.

Ms Schulz was originally granted bail, but in July 2021, she was charged with a second stalking offence and refused bail.

The prosecution told the court Judith Ann Schulz had allegedly emailed several people in close contact to Scott Henschen (pictured), including his partner, best friend and a relative of one of the witnesses after being told to stay away from him.

The prosecution told the court she had emailed several people close to Mr Henschen, including his partner, best friend and a relative of one of the witnesses.

Police prosecutor Pepe Gangemi said it was “ridiculous” to assume the victim would not discover the information she had been distributing, which was a breach of her bail conditions as she was told not to contact or approach Mr Henschen and a number of other witnesses.

Ms Schulz was tried in a Brisbane court in December 2024, and after a three-week trial, a jury found her guilty of two counts of stalking, and not guilty of attempted extortion.

She was sentenced to 18 months in prison with a parole release date of July 9, 2025.

However, the trial appeared to be tainted with internal conflict between jury members and concerns around impartiality, which resulted in one person asking to be allowed to step down.

According to court documents, on day 14 of the trial, when the summing up was just about to start, Judge Vicki Loury received a “flurry” of notes from the jury.

Judge Vicki Loury QC oversaw the December 2024 trial.

Clynton Grant Reynolds pleads guilty to assault, wilful damage charges

Two a day: Stolen car hotspots of the Wide Bay and Burnett

The notes, published in the Court of Appeal documents, revealed the jury had voted to remove one juror who they believed to be unable to be impartial due to “perceived biases through life experiences”.

They also raised concerns about another juror who was “feeling uncomfortable in making a verdict” in the matter.

A note from the person who was discharged said they felt there were “sufficient jurors who are not impartial” and that they felt “uncomfortable” when she challenged them.

“I want to voluntarily remove myself because the other jurors have voted I should go and in addition, I feel there are sufficient jurors who are not impartial to secure a carefully weighted decision,“ the note read.

“The reason those who voted against me feel uncomfortable is I challenge their prejudices in my opinion and they see that as me being biased in favour of the defendant.

“In my view, the jury should disband, but I am leaving, so that is up to them now.

“I am neurodivergent so its [sic] hard to communicate with them. The decision was majority, not unanimous.”

Chief Justice Helen Bowskills, Justice Thomas Bradley, and Justice Peter Callaghan oversaw the appeal process in Brisbane and delivered their verdict on May 12, 2025.

Court documents showed Ms Schulz’s legal team made an application to discharge the entire jury, which the judge denied because they were at day 14 of the trial and she was satisfied the rest of the jury was impartial, among other reasons.

Chief Justice Helen Bowskill, Justice Thomas Bradley, and Justice Peter Callaghan oversaw the appeal process and delivered their verdict on May 12, 2025.

According to the Jury Act 1995, a judge may only discharge a member of the jury if they find them to be impartial, if they become unavailable for reasons the judge considers adequate, or incapable of continuing to act as a juror.

The court acknowledged the “dilemma” Judge Loury faced in this unusual circumstance, with Judge Bowskill saying:

“This Court has the benefit of calm hindsight, which a trial judge does not have”.

The appeal found there was no actual evidence of bias in the jury notes or in discussion with the jury, and found “a miscarriage of justice occurred”.

The guilty verdicts were set aside, and the prosecution is expected to seek a new trial date.