Masters v R

Masters appealed against his conviction and sentence for kidnapping and attempted arson, arguing that the primary judge failed to adequately consider his mental illness, which he claimed reduced his moral culpability. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in not taking into account the impact of Masters’ mental illness on his culpability and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the mitigating factors. The court held that the primary judge erred by not considering the mitigating effect of Masters' mental illness on his moral culpability and by not making findings about Masters’ prospects of rehabilitation. The court further held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, as it did not reflect the unique circumstances of the offending and Masters' mental illness. The appeal was allowed, and Masters was re-sentenced. The court ordered that Masters be re-sentenced, taking into account his mental illness, prospects of rehabilitation, and the peculiar circumstances of the offending.