Timothy Michael Freeman v The Queen

[2013] HCASL 4

TIMOTHY MICHAEL FREEMAN

v

THE QUEEN

[2013] HCASL 4
B63/2012

1. The applicant's application for special leave to appeal complains, first, about errors in the statement of facts which he alleges that his solicitor procured him to sign without his consent.  That statement was supplied to the sentencing judge as the basis on which the applicant was to be sentenced.  The second complaint is that the solicitor was negligent, but this is not particularised beyond a complaint that "she did not care nor do her job correctly" and only met him once.  He also advances various considerations pointing to the inutility of keeping him in prison.

2. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland reasoned, in effect, that even if the factual position had been as the applicant contends, there would have no difference to the sentences.  The Court of Appeal also considered, contrary to the applicant's argument, that the sentences were not manifestly excessive.  That reasoning has not been effectively challenged.  And it has not been demonstrated that even if the solicitor's conduct has been as the applicant claims it should have been, the applicant's sentence would have been altered or should be altered.

3. The application must be dismissed.

4. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
26 February 2013 V.M. Bell