R v McMaster - [2007] VSC 133

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1403 of 2007

THE QUEEN

STUART JOHN McMASTER

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12-15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 29 JULY 2007; 30 JULY 2007 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 AUGUST 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	THE QUEEN v STUART JOHN McMASTER
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 133

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Death of a child – Severe abdominal injuries – Plea of guilty – Use of uncharged acts of violence – Remorse – Failure to seek help - Twelve years and six month’ imprisonment – Minimum ten years.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing injury – Assault to mother of the child – Six months’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Hillman QC Ms A. Forrester	Angela Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr G. Meredith	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

On 25 March 2006, Cody Hutchings died. You, Stuart McMaster, killed him. You have pleaded guilty to having done so. This is to your credit and, as I am obliged by law to do, I have taken your plea into careful consideration in deciding upon an appropriate sentence in your case.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment. In addition to that charge, I must also sentence you on the count of intentionally causing injury for which a jury has found you guilty. Here, the victim was Cody’s mother, Belinda McMaster, and the maximum penalty is ten years’ imprisonment.

In the case of the count of manslaughter, the act by which the crime was constituted was not only a conscious and voluntary act on your part, but was also one that was unlawful and dangerous; dangerous, that is, in the sense that a reasonable person in your position must have realised that Cody was thereby exposed to an appreciable risk of serious injury.

It is also relevant to note the context in which the fatal assault occurred. It was one of a series of physical attacks on Cody that were systematic and serious. Some of them were brutal. You have not been charged with these other assaults, and I therefore cannot and do not impose any punishment for them. On the other hand, in this case the context necessarily affects my response to submissions that you are remorseful.

The context is also important for another reason. I am required by law to take into account the nature and gravity of the offence. Just as any sentence must reflect the fact, if it be the fact, that the offence was an isolated and aberrant act, out of character with the typical behaviour of the offender, so must a sentence reflect the fact, if it be the fact, that the offence for which it is imposed was one of a series of acts of cruelty inflicted upon a young and defenceless child who, as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v McMaster

Details

AGLC: R v McMaster [2007] VSC 133
Case: [2007] VSC 133
Decision Date: 14 AUGUST 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McMaster was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland where the appellant, McMaster, was convicted of manslaughter and intentionally causing injury to the mother of the child. McMaster had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation to the death of his infant daughter, who died from severe abdominal injuries, and to assaulting the child's mother. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these serious offences.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentence for McMaster's actions. This included considering the uncharged acts of violence against the child, the level of remorse displayed by McMaster, and his failure to seek help for the child. The court also needed to consider the appropriate penalty for the assault on the child's mother. The sentencing principles outlined in the Sentencing Act were crucial in guiding the court's decision-making process.

In delivering the sentence, the court noted that the death of the child resulted from McMaster's violent conduct, and the assault on the child's mother further demonstrated a pattern of abusive behaviour. The court considered McMaster's guilty plea and his lack of remorse, which were significant aggravating factors. However, the court also took into account his failure to seek help for the child, which indicated a level of negligence. The court ultimately sentenced McMaster to twelve years and six months' imprisonment for the manslaughter charge, with a minimum non-parole period of ten years. For the assault on the child's mother, McMaster was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

Orders