R v Featherstone, Featherstone & Burch - [2024] QDC 1

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Featherstone, Featherstone & Burch [2024] QDC 1

PARTIES:

THE KING

(respondent)

v

MICHAEL JOHN FEATHERSTONE, ZACH MICHAEL FEATHERSTONE and TRAVIS CHARLES BURCH

(applicants)

FILE NO/S:

1561 of 23

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application under s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 January 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 December 2023

JUDGE:

Loury KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The application for a permanent stay is refused;

2.   The particulars are struck out;

3.   I will hear the parties as to any consequent applications and orders.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – application for permanent stay of the indictment – where the applicants are charged with fraud and related charges – where there are many complainants - where the prosecution has provided multiple iterations of its particulars – whether the current particulars remain deficient –whether the balance falls in favour of granting the stay application

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 7(1)(b)-(c), 8, 541

CASES:

Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Attorney-General v Wands [2019] 1 QR 365
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (No 5 – Indictment) (2021) 394 ALR 403

Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237

Handlen v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 282
Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23
O’Dea v State of Western Australia (2022) 273 CLR 315
Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531
Pickett v Western Australia (2020) 270 CLR 323
R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1
R v Handlen and Paddison [2010] QCA 371
R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450
R v Melling [2010] QCA 307
R v Mosely (1992) 28 NSWLR 735
R v White [2023] QCA 66
Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1

COUNSEL:

T Game SC, C Wilson and T Bicanic for Michael Featherstone
D Jones KC and A Cappellano for Zach Featherstone
A Hoare KC for Travis Burch
C Marco and S Muir for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hannay Lawyers for Michael Featherstone
Guest Lawyers for Zach Featherstone
Legal Aid Queensland for Travis Burch
Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Introduction

The defendants, Mr Michael Featherstone; Mr Zach Featherstone and Mr Travis Burch were charged by police on 24 February 2016 with fraud and related charges. They each apply for a permanent stay of the indictment on the grounds that the delay in the prosecution combined with the changing Crown case and the continued material deficiencies in the particulars provided, amounts to an affront to the administration of justice.
On 5 December 2018, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) provided the first version of a draft statement of facts and particulars. On 21 December 2018, the ODPP provided the second version of a draft statement of facts and particulars. On 12 June 2019, the ODPP provided further amended…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Featherstone, Featherstone & Burch

Details

AGLC: R v Featherstone, Featherstone & Burch [2024] QDC 1
Case: [2024] QDC 1
Decision Date: 15 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Featherstone and Burch, were charged with multiple counts of fraud and related offences. They applied for a permanent stay of the indictment, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide adequate particulars, particularly in relation to the numerous complainants. The court was required to determine whether the particulars provided by the prosecution were sufficient and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay. The applicants contended that the particulars were still deficient, making it impossible to adequately prepare a defence, while the prosecution argued that the particulars were sufficient and that the delay had already been significant. The court found that the prosecution had made efforts to provide particulars but that there were still deficiencies. However, the court held that the balance of convenience did not favour granting a stay as the prejudice to the applicants was not as significant as the prejudice to the numerous complainants if the proceedings were delayed further. The application for a permanent stay was therefore refused, and the particulars were struck out. The court indicated it would hear the parties as to any consequent applications and orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for a permanent stay is refused;

2. The particulars are struck out;

3. I will hear the parties as to any consequent applications and orders.

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.

CITATION:	R v Featherstone, Featherstone & Burch [2024] QDC 1
PARTIES:	THE KING (respondent) v MICHAEL JOHN FEATHERSTONE, ZACH MICHAEL FEATHERSTONE and TRAVIS CHARLES BURCH (applicants)
FILE NO/S:	1561 of 23
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application under s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 January 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 December 2023
JUDGE:	Loury KC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The application for a permanent stay is refused; 2. The particulars are struck out; 3. I will hear the parties as to any consequent applications and orders.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – application for permanent stay of the indictment – where the applicants are charged with fraud and related charges – where there are many complainants - where the prosecution has provided multiple iterations of its particulars – whether the current particulars remain deficient –whether the balance falls in favour of granting the stay application
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 7(1)(b)-(c), 8, 541
CASES:	Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Attorney-General v Wands [2019] 1 QR 365 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (No 5 – Indictment) (2021) 394 ALR 403 Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237 Handlen v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 282 Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23 O’Dea v State of Western Australia (2022) 273 CLR 315 Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531 Pickett v Western Australia (2020) 270 CLR 323 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 R v Handlen and Paddison [2010] QCA 371 R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450 R v Melling [2010] QCA 307 R v Mosely (1992) 28 NSWLR 735 R v White [2023] QCA 66 Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1
COUNSEL:	T Game SC, C Wilson and T Bicanic for Michael Featherstone D Jones KC and A Cappellano for Zach Featherstone A Hoare KC for Travis Burch C Marco and S Muir for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Hannay Lawyers for Michael Featherstone Guest Lawyers for Zach Featherstone Legal Aid Queensland for Travis Burch Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent