Watkins (a pseudonym) v The King

The applicant, Watkins, appealed against his conviction and sentence for rape, arguing procedural unfairness and errors in the trial judge’s application of the standard sentencing regime. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in concluding that Watkins was in a position of trust without properly exploring the issue or giving Watkins an opportunity to respond. This finding constituted a denial of procedural fairness. The court further held that the evidence did not support a conclusion that Watkins was in a position of trust, as the relationship between Watkins and the complainant was not one of mutual obligation and responsibility.

The court also examined whether the trial judge had correctly applied the standard sentencing regime, finding no error in the judge’s approach. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that an appeal against sentence would succeed, and thus denied leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the nature of friendships does not inherently create a relationship of trust for sentencing purposes, as friendships lack clearly defined boundaries and obligations. This distinction was highlighted in the recent case of DPP (Vic) v Gorgulu.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no procedural unfairness or error in the trial judge’s application of the law. The court denied leave to appeal, affirming that the relationship between Watkins and the complainant did not constitute a position of trust within the meaning of the sentencing regime.