McMaster v The Queen

The case of McMaster v The Queen involved the defendant, McMaster, who was convicted of two counts of grievous bodily harm with intent. The dispute centred on the sentencing for these two counts, which were committed simultaneously against two different victims. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentences for these two counts should be cumulative or concurrent, and whether certain post-sentence events could be considered in the sentencing process. The prosecution conceded that the two counts constituted part of the same transaction, which would typically allow for concurrent sentencing. However, the court needed to ascertain the extent to which it was bound by such a concession, particularly when the prosecution had not formally applied for concurrent sentencing.

The court examined the legal principle that, while a concession by the prosecution can be influential, it does not necessarily bind the court. The primary consideration was the appropriateness of the sentence in the circumstances of the case. The court also had to address the admissibility of fresh evidence concerning events that occurred after the original sentencing, which the defence sought to introduce. This evidence related to the defendant's conduct and circumstances that arose post-sentencing, and the court had to determine whether these events could be taken into account when considering the sentence.

The court concluded that while the prosecution's concession was a significant factor, it was not determinative. The court must ultimately decide what constitutes a just and appropriate sentence in the context of the crime and the offender. The concession by the prosecution influenced the court's decision but did not constrain it from exercising its independent judgment. Regarding the fresh evidence, the court held that events occurring after the initial sentencing could be considered if they were relevant to the circumstances of the crime or the character of the offender. In this case, the post-sentencing conduct was deemed relevant and admissible, impacting the final sentencing decision. The court ordered that the sentences for the two counts of grievous bodily harm with intent be served concurrently, taking into account the post-sentencing conduct of the defendant.