R v Featherstone

Case [2025] QDC 147

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Featherstone & Ors [2025] QDC 147
PARTIES:

THE KING
(Respondent)

v

MICHAEL JOHN FEATHERSTONE
(First Applicant)

ZACH MICHAEL FEATHERSTONE
(Second Applicant)

TRAVIS CHARLES BURCH
(Third Applicant)

ROBERT JOHN DOUEIHI
(Fourth Applicant)

KIRSTY MARIA LESTER
(Fifth Applicant)

NATCHAMON SRISUNANRAT
(Sixth Applicant)

FILE NO:

DC No 1561 of 2023, 2232 of 2022, 2227 of 2022

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2025

JUDGE:

Loury KC DCJ
ORDERS:

1.   In respect of Z Featherstone, T Burch, R Doueihi, and K Lester, indictment 1561/23 is permanently stayed.

2.   In respect of M Featherstone, indictments 1561/23, 2232/22 and 2227/22 are permanently stayed.

3.   The applications by T Burch, Z Featherstone and N Srisunanrat for a permanent stay of indictment 2232/22 are refused.

4.   The particulars provided in respect of indictment 2232/22 are struck out.

5.   The applications by R Doueihi and T Burch for a permanent stay of indictment 2227/22 are refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW -- ADJOURNMENT, STAY OR PROCEEDINGS -- application for permanent stay where particulars are deficient; where there has been a significant delay; where prosecution has declined to say whether it will satisfy a Mosely order -- where the prosecution is not confident it has reasonable prospects of success -- whether the conduct of the prosecution is unjustifiably oppressive -- whether the conduct of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process and has the effect of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 7(1)(a)-(c), 7(4), 567(3), 568(3), 624, 668A

CASES:

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (No 5 – Indictment) [2021] FCA 1345
Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237; [2010] HCA 20
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; [1989] HCA 46
KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417; [1997] HCA 54
KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11
Moti v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 456; [2011] HCA 50
O’Dea v Western Australia (2022) 273 CLR 315; [2022] HCA 24
PPP v The Queen (2010) 27 VR 68; [2010] VSCA 110
R v Featherstone, Featherstone & Burch [2024] QDC 1
R v Featherstone (No 2) [2025] QDCPR 15
R v Featherstone; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions(Qld) [2024] QCA 197
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; [1992] HCA 16
R v Jayaweera [2022] QCA 103
R v Jell, ex parte Attorney-General [1991] 1 Qd R 48
R v Quagliata [2019] QCA 45
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42
Strickland v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2018) 266 CLR 325; [2018] HCA 53
Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77; [1996] HCA 26
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34
COUNSEL:

T Bicanic for…

Continue reading R v Featherstone

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Featherstone [2025] QDC 147
Case
[2025] QDC 147
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions brought an application against Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (Citigroup) and several individuals for a permanent stay of certain indictments. The application was heard by Justice Bromberg in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence obtained under a commission issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and the legal validity of the charges against the defendants.

The court was required to decide whether the evidence obtained under the ASIC commission was admissible and whether the charges against the defendants were legally valid. Specifically, the court had to determine if the evidence was obtained in a manner that complied with the law and if the charges against the defendants were properly framed and supported by the evidence.

Justice Bromberg held that the evidence obtained under the ASIC commission was not admissible, and that the charges against the defendants were not legally valid. The court found that the ASIC commission was flawed and that the evidence obtained under it was inadmissible. The court also found that the charges against the defendants were not properly framed and were not supported by the evidence. Consequently, the court permanently stayed the indictments against certain defendants and struck out particulars in respect of one of the indictments. The court refused other applications for a permanent stay of indictments against some defendants.

The court ordered that the indictments against certain defendants be permanently stayed, that particulars be struck out, and that other applications for a permanent stay of indictments be refused. The court's decision effectively brought an end to the criminal proceedings against the defendants in respect of the stayed indictments.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of Z Featherstone, T Burch, R Doueihi, and K Lester, indictment 1561/23 is permanently stayed.

2. In respect of M Featherstone, indictments 1561/23, 2232/22 and 2227/22 are permanently stayed.

3. The applications by T Burch, Z Featherstone and N Srisunanrat for a permanent stay of indictment 2232/22 are refused.

4. The particulars provided in respect of indictment 2232/22 are struck out.

5. The applications by R Doueihi and T Burch for a permanent stay of indictment 2227/22 are refused.

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.