Golding v The Queen Elfar v The Queen

GOLDING
v
THE QUEEN
ELFAR
v
THE QUEEN
[2020] HCASL 28
B51/2019
B52/2019

Each applicant seeks an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Gotterson, Morrison and McMurdo JJA) dismissing his appeal against conviction in the Supreme Court of Queensland of charges of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine, and of possessing the same.
Neither applicant has identified any prejudice arising from his compulsory examination by the Australian Crime Commission sufficient to engage the principles in Strickland v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (2018) 93 ALJR 1; 361 ALR 23. Any appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospect of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. It would be futile to grant the extension of time sought.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M Bell G.A.A Nettle

12 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, Golding and Elfar, each convicted of importing and possessing a commercial quantity of cocaine, sought an extension of time to appeal their convictions to the High Court from the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicants were dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's dismissal of their appeal against their convictions in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicants argued that their compulsory examination by the Australian Crime Commission constituted prejudice sufficient to warrant an extension of time to appeal to the High Court. They contended that this alleged prejudice engaged the principles enunciated in the case of Strickland v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants' alleged prejudice arising from their compulsory examination by the Australian Crime Commission was sufficient to warrant an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal. The court was also required to decide whether an appeal to the High Court would enjoy a sufficient prospect of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.

The court found that neither applicant had identified any prejudice arising from their compulsory examination by the Australian Crime Commission that would engage the principles in Strickland v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The court held that any appeal to the High Court would not enjoy a sufficient prospect of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal and that it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought. The court dismissed the applications for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal.

Pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The order was signed and sealed by Justices Bell and Nettle on 12 February 2020.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established