Golding v The Queen Elfar v The Queen

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.