Timothy Michael Freeman v The Queen

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

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
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Timothy Michael Freeman v The Queen and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2013] HCASL 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Timothy Michael Freeman v The Queen, the applicant sought special leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The primary grievances were regarding the alleged errors in the statement of facts that the applicant claims he was coerced into signing by his solicitor without his consent. This statement was provided to the sentencing judge as a basis for the applicant's sentencing. The applicant also claimed that his solicitor was negligent in her duties, though he did not provide specific details beyond stating that she did not care and did not perform her job correctly, and only met with him once. Furthermore, the applicant presented several considerations suggesting that it was not in his best interest to remain in prison.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the alleged errors in the statement of facts would have affected the sentencing outcome, and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland had already ruled that even if the applicant's claims about the factual inaccuracies were true, it would not have made a difference to the sentences imposed. Additionally, the Court of Appeal had determined that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, a finding that the applicant did not effectively challenge. Moreover, the court found that even if the solicitor's conduct was as the applicant claimed, it did not necessarily mean that the applicant's sentence would have been altered or should be altered.

The High Court concluded that the application for special leave to appeal must be dismissed. The court's reasoning was based on the findings of the Court of Appeal, which were not effectively challenged by the applicant. The court found that the alleged errors in the statement of facts and the alleged negligence of the solicitor did not warrant a change in the sentences imposed. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.