The judge who ruled the trial of alleged Claremont serial killer Bradley Edwards should be held before a judge alone has published his reasons for the decision – revealing prosecutors intend to produce video and pictures of the decomposed bodies of two of the victims during the trial.

The trial of Bradley Robert Edwards, who is accused murdering Sarah Spiers, Ciara Glennon and Jane Rimmer in the mid 90s had been due to begin in July, until it was revealed last week that potential fresh evidence could delay the beginning by months.

But whenever the trial starts, it will be not be before a jury, after a ruling made last year by Supreme Court Justice Michael Corboy.

Today, Justice Corboy released his written reasons for that decision.

And they detailed the four factors he considered before taking that step — pre-trial publicity, the length of the trial, the technical or complex nature of the expert evidence and the nature of the evidence to be adduced at trial.

That evidence, he said, was likely to include material prosecutors described as ‘particularly graphic and disturbing’.

Camera Icon Sarah Spiers, Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon.

“The State foreshadowed that it will seek to produce video and photographic evidence of the decomposed bodies of Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon in situ as well as visual material from their post mortem examinations,” Judge Corboy said.

“In most homicide trials, visual material of that kind is unnecessary to the case of either party.

“However, the State has identified a number of grounds upon which it contends that material of this type will be relevant to the prosecution of the charges of murder alleged against the respondent.

“It has not been necessary to review the material that the State proposes to present.

“I accept that the characterisation of the material as ‘particularly graphic and disturbing’ and ‘so upsetting to some jurors that they may be unable to objectively consider the relevance and significance of [what] these exhibits depict’ is accurate.”

Judge Corboy also said the “unprecedented” level of publicity surrounding the case, the estimated nine month trial duration, and fibre and DNA evidence of “particular complexity” all combined to make his decision.