Media adviser launches $4m malicious prosecution claim over kidnap case

2 days ago 5

Clive Palmer’s former media adviser has launched legal action against the National Australia Bank and the Queensland government claiming more than $4 million for malicious prosecution after he was charged over a plot to kidnap a banker in Indonesia.

Andrew Crook, who for years managed media communications for the mining billionaire, filed the claim in the Brisbane Supreme Court earlier this year – the latest legal challenge in the years-long court battle.

But NAB has pushed for the case to be struck out, arguing it is an abuse of process.

Crook was charged alongside former private investigator Mick Featherstone and ex-Sydney Swans player Tony Smith over police allegations they were involved in a kidnap scheme in which NAB employee Adam Gazal, now a director at the bank, was lured to attend a fake job interview with Palmer in Indonesia in 2014.

Palmer was never alleged to have known about the incident, and was not accused of wrongdoing.

The allegations centred on plans to get a confession from Gazal over a civil claim of Smith’s against NAB for $68 million.

Mick Featherstone after his arrest in 2014.

After lengthy court proceedings, the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the charges against the three men in 2020.

Crook now claims his case was one of malicious prosecution, and he’s seeking $4,151,850 in damages, including $3.7 million in economic loss, and more than $100,000 in legal expenses.

He said the initial charges were without reasonable and proper cause because there was no evidence for several allegations, including that he tried to obtain from Gazal an admission of perjury by threats.

Crook claimed that before his arrest, he had an untarnished personal and business reputation, and had a number of clients through his media company, including Flight Centre, Fortescue Metals founder Andrew Forrest, Tourism Queensland, Ray White Australia, and Multiplex.

He said that in 2014, his business, Crook Media, had an average monthly turnover of $160,379.

For his alleged false imprisonment, he claimed $100,000 in damages, and also said he was subjected to adverse publicity in Australia and overseas.

Both the state and NAB are pushing for the court to strike Crook’s case out, with the bank arguing the proceedings are an abuse of process.

It argued the claim was an impermissible collateral attack on judgments already made by Justice Peter Applegarth in Smith’s civil case. It also said the proceedings would be unjustifiably oppressive to NAB and Gazal, and could bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

NAB said that between 2009 and 2012, the bank and Gazal were required to defend proceedings against them by AKS Investments and its director, Smith, which Applegarth ultimately found to be “bogus and contrived claims”.

The bank referenced the fact AKS had appealed against the civil trial judgment and the costs judgment, and that both were subsequently dismissed by consent.

In defence documents, the state referenced email and phone communications between Crook, Smith and Featherstone about the plans for the confession.

The state said Crook knew the purpose of tricking Gazal into travelling to the city of Batam was to “get him on Indonesian soil”, and that Featherstone, acting as “Michael Wright”, would conduct the fake interview in a bid to obtain a recorded confession from Gazal that he had lied in evidence during the civil trial.

It also said Crook knew there would be a backup plan, which, at a minimum, involved Smith entering the room with Gazal and Featherstone and surprising Gazal “with all exits covered”.

The state denied there was a malicious prosecution or that Crook suffered any loss as a consequence. Crook was also not entitled to claim damages for false imprisonment because he was not falsely imprisoned, and his claim was barred by the statute of limitations, according to the state.

It added that Crook could not claim damages for past economic loss because he did not have cause of action for malicious prosecution against the state.

The government also denied the claimed malicious prosecution injured Crook’s reputation.

NAB said it did not admit that Crook Media clients withdrew their business, and even if the clients did, this was not caused by injury to Crook’s reputation.

It also did not admit Crook suffered a loss of income, or that he was entitled to general damages from NAB, because no cause of action for malicious prosecution lay against the bank.

The case remains before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.