The second teenager accused of murdering Suffolk mother Emma Lovell in her Australian home will not face a jury, according to ABC news. 

Lawyers for the teenager argued that because the trial takes place so close to state elections, he won't face a fair trial.

Mrs Lovell, 41, and her husband Lee were stabbed during a home invasion in North Lakes on Boxing Day in 2022. She later died from her injuries, while her husband recovered.

Christina Lofthouse (left) with Emma Lovell (right) (Image: Christina Lofthouse)Christina Lofthouse (left) with Emma Lovell (right) (Image: Christina Lofthouse) Originally from Hasketon, Mrs Lovell lived in Ipswich with her husband and two daughters before the family moved to Australia in 2011.

Two teenagers, who were both 17 when Mrs Lovell died, were arrested in relation to the killing, with one jailed for 14 years after pleading guilty to murder earlier this year.

His co-accused appeared in the Australian Supreme Court earlier this week with his lawyer applying for the trial to be held with a judge only, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

It was argued that the high profile nature of the case could render it impossible to hold an impartial opinion.

Christina Lofthouse (Left) and Emma Lovell (Right) were best friends for 33 yearsChristina Lofthouse (Left) and Emma Lovell (Right) were best friends for 33 years (Image: Christina Lofthouse) Not only that, but the media coverage of the case may influence the state elections, with the issue of youth crime looming large and could influence voters, ABC reported.

Laura Reece told the court such a "tragic killing" warranted community concern and media coverage, but the case had not "simply attracted initial attention and then receded from the public eye".

"The difference is when the reporting arises to a particular level, which might fairly be seen to be prejudicial to the interests of an accused."

The application for the judge only trial was held ;;;;;;.llllllllllThe application for the judge only trial was held earlier this week (Image: Google) Justice Peter Callaghan agreed with the lawyers, arguing the situation was unique and that the notoriety of the case could prejudice a jury against the teenager. 

He said: "The materials [news reports and social media posts] provoke emotions of sympathy and prejudice which have no place in jury deliberations.

"Away from the election it may be decided differently."

He also said "volume of press space and airtime" given to the story explained why the topic of youth crime "has become a central issue in the forthcoming state election".