Key Facts
- •Karl Steffan Golds was convicted of 22 sexual offences against two children (C1 and C2).
- •He received a 25-year prison sentence.
- •The applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal his conviction and sentence, approximately two years and two years and four months respectively.
- •The applicant claimed his barrister did not act in his best interests.
- •The applicant's murder conviction (from 1991) was admitted as evidence during the trial.
- •The applicant raised several grounds for appeal, including ineffective counsel and inadmissible evidence.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of prior convictions in sexual offence trials.
No specific case law cited, but the judge's ruling on admissibility is discussed.
Legal Professional Privilege and waiver thereof.
No specific case law cited, but the principle is applied in the context of the applicant's criticism of his trial counsel.
Totality principle in sentencing.
Sentencing Guidelines (implicitly referenced)
Time spent in custody on remand and its consideration in sentencing.
No specific case law cited, but the principle is discussed in relation to the applicant's sentence.
Extension of time for appeals.
No specific case law cited, but the court's power to grant or refuse an extension is exercised.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
Application for extension of time to appeal conviction and sentence refused.
The court found the reasons for the delay insufficient and the grounds of appeal without merit.
Leave to appeal against conviction refused.
The court found no grounds to suggest the conviction was unsafe. The murder conviction was admissible, and the applicant was well-represented at trial.
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
The sentence was found to be proportionate and within the sentencing guidelines. The judge's consideration of totality was appropriate.