R v Salameh

Jamal Salameh was arraigned before me on 27 October 2025 and entered a plea of not guilty to the following charge on the indictment:

By consent of the parties, the trial was conducted without a jury. I made formal orders that the trial be conducted by judge alone on 27 October 2025.

The evidence concluded on 29 October 2025. The closing addresses proceeded on 7 and 10 November 2025, written outlines of both addresses also having been provided. The matter was adjourned to today for the delivery of verdict and reasons.

No issue is taken by the parties with the fact that Rami Iskander was killed by shooting by two men who then escaped in a black Audi SQ5 in the early hours of the morning on 14 May 2022.

The Crown case is that the accused was an accessory before the fact to the murder. This accessorial liability is said to arise from his provision of a car, namely a blue Hyundai i30 wagon (“the Hyundai”) on 12 May 2022, this then used as the third getaway car by the shooters after the murder of the deceased. The Crown was thus tasked to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused provided the Hyundai to the principal offenders, knowing that the car would be used to facilitate a murder. The Crown case was that the accused knew it would be used in connection with retaliation over the shooting of brothers Tarek and Omar Zahed that had occurred two days earlier on 10 May 2022, and he knew his provision of the vehicle would assist the shooters to escape after the murder of the deceased. The Crown case is circumstantial and relies on the drawing of a number of inferences to prove the guilt of the accused to the criminal standard.

To establish the accused’s state of mind at the time of the alleged offending, the Crown sought to rely on the evidence of two other events: The first being the shooting murder of Mahmoud Ahmad on 27 April 2022 and the second being the shooting murder of Omar Zahed and attempted murder of Tarek Zahed on 10 May 2022.

Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) requires a judge conducting a judge alone trial to include in his or her judgment the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact on which the judge relied in reaching the relevant verdict.

The parties provided a set of proposed directions, which was marked MFI 9, and which is annexed to these reasons. With three qualifications, I direct myself in accordance with the directions set out in that document. The document mistakenly refers to the manner to approach multiple counts on an indictment. That direction is not relevant to this trial. The directions include instruction on the way in which I should approach the fact that the accused has not given evidence. I direct myself similarly in relation to the evidence that was adduced that the accused exercised his right to silence when arrested by police. Thirdly, insofar as there may be some contention as to whether a direction in accordance with Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; [2008] HCA 1 is required, I expect my reasons will explain the way I have perceived and treated potential gaps in the evidence relied upon by the Crown.

Although it is in the document, I emphasise the most fundamental direction which is that it is for the Crown to prove the requisite elements beyond reasonable doubt.

As to those elements, the Crown is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Iskander was murdered, and the evidence clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that he was. An outstanding element the Crown is required to prove in this particular case is that the accused intentionally assisted the principal offenders to commit that crime. The assistance alleged is his provision of the Hyundai. The Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Hyundai was used to assist the principal offenders to commit the crime of murder. Relevantly in this case, the Crown is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally provided or made available the Hyundai to the principal offenders, and that he did so knowing all the essential facts, both of a physical and mental nature, which made what was to be done by the principal offenders a crime.

It was made clear for the accused in opening, consistently with indications at pre-trial appearances, that much of the material to be tendered by the Crown was irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible (such as non-expert police opinion), but that provisional tender was agreed to for the purposes of efficiency. Specifically, the accused did not concede the admissibility of the evidence relating to the murder of Mr Ahmad on 27 April 2022. It was not accepted that there was any relevant coincidence reasoning available as suggested in the Crown’s coincidence evidence notice; and it was submitted that whereas objection would have been taken to the evidence if the trial was by jury, the issue was able to be dealt with by way of submission in a judge alone trial.

The Crown case was primarily presented in documentary form. Three folders of material were tendered – one of statements relating to the shooting of Mr Iskander, one of statements relating to the shooting of Mr Ahmad, and one of evidence derived from examination of the accused’s phone being two statements of Detective Senior Constable Brendon Coppola and a number of annexures. With the exception of Detective Coppola, none of the witnesses whose statements were contained in these three folders of material was required for cross-examination. Detective Coppola provided additional evidence in chief and was cross-examined.

The Crown additionally tendered a statement of Detective Senior Constable Kyle Sonter dated 16 June 2023 with annexures, three statements of Senior Intelligence Analyst with State Intelligence Command, NSW Police, Joanne Sofrenic, and the report of Detective Sergeant Bruce Groenewegen dated 10 August 2023. None of these witnesses was required for cross-examination. Ms Sofrenic and Detective Bruce Groenewegen have specialised knowledge based on their training and experience.

The officer in charge of the investigation, Detective Sergeant Paul Mangan, gave oral evidence introducing exhibit 6 which is a timeline of events, and was cross-examined.

A 260 page Forensic Analyst Report, prepared by Department Professional Officer, Renee Summerside, NSW Police, was tendered as exhibit 3. This exhibit was not referred to in the submissions of the Crown. The report’s notation that the accused did not use encrypted applications was referred to on behalf of the accused. I have reviewed the narrative content of the report being the first 28 pages (although most of even this comprised screenshots of material retrieved from the phone of the accused), but not the images attached. It seems that some images of significance have been included otherwise in exhibit 6.

A statement of agreed facts was tendered to prove a number of further matters (to the extent they were regarded as relevant). No evidence was called for the accused.

At about 3:50 am on Saturday 14 May 2022, Rami Iskander returned to his home at Knox Street, Belmore. He arrived alone in a vehicle and parked outside his premises, adjacent to the northern kerb on Knox Street. As Rami Iskander approached his front door, two males got out of a black Audi SQ5, which was parked adjacent to the southern kerb on Knox Street, and ran towards him. One male discharged a self-loading pistol at least 14 times towards Rami Iskander while the other male discharged a revolver up to six times. Police later found 14 9mm Luger calibre fired cartridge cases on the driveway of the home of the deceased, and 16 areas of impact damage to the front door of his home.

Rami Iskander suffered four gunshot wounds and died. The direct cause of Rami Iskander’s death was from multiple gunshot wounds.

Immediately after the shooting, the two male shooters ran back to and entered the black Audi SQ5. The Audi SQ5, which had been stolen from its owner on 7 or 8 November 2021, then drove away from the scene. At the time of the shooting, this Audi SQ5 was bearing cloned number plates. Number plate cloning involves falsifying a genuine number plate and attaching it to another vehicle of the same or similar make and model. Number plate cloning is a measure used by organised criminal groups to avoid police detection as it is not recognised by the Police Mobile Automatic Number Plate Recognition equipment.

The shooters drove a short distance in the Audi SQ5 to Tavistock Street, Croydon Park, where they exited the Audi SQ5 and used ignitable liquid to destroy the Audi SQ5 by fire. At about 3:57 am on 14 May 2022 the shooters entered a second getaway car, being a silver Toyota RAV4 bearing cloned number plates that Vincent Lambroglou had parked at Tavistock Street about 42 hours earlier. The shooters then drove this Toyota RAV4 away from Tavistock Street, Croydon Park to Coveney Street, Bexley North.

At about 4:05 am on 14 May 2022, the shooters exited the Toyota RAV4 at Coveney Street and used ignitable liquid to destroy the Toyota RAV4 by fire. The shooters then entered a third getaway car, the Hyundai, that Mr Lambroglou had parked at Coveney Street about 31 hours earlier, and drove away. The shooters travelled in the Hyundai to an underground carpark in a unit complex on Railway Parade, Allawah.

Unchallenged evidence before the Court is that the modus operandi used by the shooters in the murder of Rami Iskander; that is, the use of several cars with cloned number plates that are then destroyed by fire, is a common modus operandi used by organised crime networks to conduct murders and avoid detection by police. Ms Sofrenic identified 14 murders related to criminal conflict / organised crime with markers similar to this in the period 1 January 2021 to 31 March 2023. Stolen vehicles were used in 12 of these murders, attempt to destroy stolen vehicles by fire occurred 11 times, cloned number plates were affixed to stolen vehicles in eight of the incidents, and a legitimate vehicle was used to decamp from the scene of a vehicle fire on five occasions. She was of the view that there may be more than five occasions where legitimate vehicles were used, and investigations were ongoing. She stated similar modus operandi had also been used in public place shootings where attempts to murder targeted individuals linked to organised crime had occurred, and that such incidents were being reviewed at the time of the completion of her statement on 4 April 2023.

The Crown case is that the accused helped the shooters by providing the co-accused Mr Lambroglou with the Hyundai before the murder of Rami Iskander, knowing it was to be used by others who were going to at least intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm upon Rami Iskander in retaliation for shooting Tarek and Omar Zahed. The Crown relies upon two events earlier in time than the murder of Mr Iskander, but it is not accepted on behalf of the accused that the Crown is entitled to do so.

At approximately 9:30 pm on 27 April 2022, Mahmoud “Brownie” Ahmad was fatally shot in Narelle Cresent, Greenacre. Mr Ahmad suffered a total of 17 gunshot wounds from a total of six projectiles having impacted his body in quick succession. The shots were all fired from the front passenger side window of a black Porsche as it drove alongside and past Mr Ahmad. The black Porsche from which Mr Ahmad was shot had been stolen 11 months previously and was displaying cloned number plates at the time of the murder. This vehicle was set on fire in South Strathfield shortly after the shooting. A second stolen vehicle, a black BMW, was then used by the shooters to drive from South Strathfield to Peel St Belmore before it too was set alight. This vehicle had been stolen one month prior to this offence and was also displaying cloned number plates.

A third vehicle, namely a white Subaru Forester (“the Forester”) was used to convey offenders from Peel St Belmore to a unit complex in Canterbury where it was parked in the underground car park of a unit block and left for a number of days. It was located by police on 2 May 2022 and surveillance was commenced upon it. The vehicle was seized by police on 3 May 2022 after being driven from that car park by Mr Francesco Delcol. At that time it had been extensively cleaned and was displaying cloned number plates.

At approximately 8:05 pm on 10 May 2022 Tarek and Omar Zahed were both shot at the Bodyfit Gym at Auburn. Omar Zahed was fatally wounded and Tarek Zahed suffered serious injuries from the shooting. Two stolen Audi motor vehicles, both of which were set on fire, and a white Range Rover, were used in relation to the shooting. The statement of Detective Coppola states “The attack was believed to be retaliation to the ‘Brownie’ AHMAD murder.” Issue is taken with the admissibility of such non-expert expressions of opinion.

Body-worn video footage captured by police at 5:05 pm on 12 May 2022 showed Tarek Zahed’s wife in a highly distraught state at the hospital, abusing police, seemingly for what she perceived to be their interference with people who had come to the hospital to show support and respect. She said “my fucking husband nearly got killed … you let these fucking boys support him huh.” She continued, in an almost hysterical state, to abuse police. She said “what you gonna see the next person get shot? … well don’t worry they’re gonna get shot … whoever fucking knocked my brother and husband they’re coming … don’t worry it’s all gonna get done very soon mate very soon … we’re onto a war … we’re onto a war you fucking selfish dogs.”

Later footage, captured when Tarek Zahed’s wife was more calm, involved her apologising to police, saying she was only angry because he was her husband and she had seen him in a state that she would never wish for her own enemy.

The Crown case depends on proof that the accused provided Mr Lambroglou with the Hyundai on 12 May 2022, with the requisite knowledge to make him an accessory before the fact to murder. It is important to understand in some detail what the evidence demonstrates as to people, businesses and relationships of potential relevance to the issues in contention in this trial.

The opening submissions for the accused advanced the proposition that he and his family have been in the legitimate motor vehicle business for a long time, the businesses renting, buying, repairing and selling cars of differing values. The Crown in closing address effectively accepted this proposition.

The accused was born on 3 November 1993. He has no prior convictions or findings of guilt made against him. Detective Coppola’s examination of the phone of the accused demonstrated that he “Owned and operated LMV Enterprises Pty Ltd, which deals with luxury vehicles.” This was confirmed by RMS holdings nominating details for a customer as LMV Enterprises Pty Ltd of 132 Bonds Road Riverwood, owned by Jamal Salameh. Various maps included in the timeline, exhibit 6, mark 132 Bonds Road Riverwood as “Jamal Salameh (business) LMV Enterprises P/L.”

On 14 November 2022 Detective Sonter executed a search warrant at 813 Canterbury Road Lakemba which was a large warehouse trading under the name of Bankstown City Auto Spares Pty Ltd (“Bankstown Auto”). Numerous computers, laptops and electronic storage devices were seized. Detective Mangan gave evidence that Bankstown Auto is a wrecking yard at Bankstown, operated by the Salameh family. He gave evidence that the Bankstown Auto business was also run from premises at 6B Commercial Road, Kingsgrove.

The 19 October 2025 statement of Joanne Sofrenic and attached documents demonstrate that in 2021 and 2022 Bankstown Auto operated its business at 813 Canterbury Road, Lakemba. Although the Director, Secretary and sole shareholder at the time of making her statement was Khaled Salameh (DOB 9 October 1959), this had only been so since June 2024. At all times relevant to this trial, Merwan Salameh (DOB 1 April 1971) was the Director and Secretary of the company. He was also a previous shareholder.

The abovementioned Merwan Salameh, who in early 2022 was 50 years of age, described Khaled Salameh, who in early 2022 was 62, as his brother, when he spoke to police about an unrelated incident to which Khaled Salameh was a witness. This Merwan Salameh resided in Mortdale at times relevant to this trial. A different unrelated police record indicates that the accused has described Khaled Salameh as his father.

There is a younger Merwan Salameh, born 17 August 1998 and thus 23 years old in early 2022, who is indicated by the evidence to be the brother of the accused. In late 2021 and throughout 2022 the accused lived with his brother Merwan, their two sisters, their father Khaled Salameh and their mother in Roselands (“the Roselands premises”).

There is reference to another Merwan Salameh with a different date of birth. Page 15 of exhibit 6 indicates the compulsory third party insurance for the Hyundai was incepted on 22 January 2022, for Merwan Salameh with a date of birth of 1 January 1969. This is significantly closer in age to the accused’s uncle than his brother, but is not precisely the same date of birth as other evidence records for the date of birth of the uncle of the accused.

There is evidence which suggests some dealings between LMV Enterprises, owned and operated by the accused, and other family businesses. In the folder of material relating to the killing of Mr Ahmad, Road Transport documents regarding a Hilux van that had some relevance to that investigation refers to the following, successively, being the registered operator of the vehicle: LMV Enterprises (of 132 Bonds Road Riverwood NSW 2210), Bankstown Auto (of 813 Canterbury Road Lakemba NSW 2195), then LMV Enterprises again, then Salameh Plus Pty Ltd (of the Roselands premises).

The exhibit 6 timeline describes the business located at 162 (or sometimes 162-166) Victoria Road Marrickville as Sydney Prestige Auto Body (or sometimes Autobody). I will refer to this business as “Sydney Prestige”. The statement of Detective Sonter describes the business at 162 Victoria Road Marrickville, at which he became aware Mr Lambroglou attended on 12 May 2022, as Sydney Prestige Auto Body.

Exhibit 6 contains stills from CCTV footage on 11 May 2022 in the Roastville Café, across the road from Sydney Prestige, said to capture the accused, Chris Kotsis, Tony Nehme and Ali Osman, pictures of whom are included. Detective Mangan gave evidence that Mr Kotsis and Mr Nehme are the operators of Sydney Prestige. I am not aware of any evidence as to who Ali Osman is. No evidence was adduced by the Crown from any of these three men. Tony Nehme and Chris Kotsis are involved in some of the communication evidence summarised below, corresponding with the designations “T” and “Chris My Bra” respectively.

Detective Sonter became aware that Mr Lambroglou had been in the vicinity of Sydney Prestige at 162 Victoria Road Marrickville on 12 May 2022, and that police obtained a search warrant for premises at 162 Victoria Road Marrickville. This was executed on 8 June 2022. The Property Seizure Exhibit Form was provided to and signed by Tony Nehme. Apart from phones, computers, plates and registration papers, police seized one box containing 13 invoices for luxury vehicles in the name of Chris Kotsis, located in an office area. There was one folder with business records in the name of Tarek Zahed in the upstairs office area. Police located “C Kotsis mail 57 envelopes + 2 x residential agreements + 1 x inv for unique car carrier…” in the upstairs office. Nothing in Detective Sonter’s description of the execution of the search warrant, or documents seized, indicates any association between the accused and the premises. He describes the exhibits as having been seized from Sydney Prestige.

Detective Mangan gave evidence that a vehicle photographed inside the Sydney Prestige workshop on 11 May 2022 – a black BMW with registration plates F90 – was owned by the company registered to the accused, LMV Enterprises. That vehicle was known by police to be used by Tarek and Omar Zahed. A further photograph from CCTV later the same date shows a blue BMW registered to LMV Enterprises, said to be known to be used by Alen Maradian, who according to Detective Mangan’s evidence was in May 2022 alive and a very senior member of the Comanchero.

Detective Coppola’s statement at paragraph 23 states that examination of the mobile telephone of the accused indicated that he “Associated with Sydney Prestige Autobody, Marrickville, which deals in luxury vehicles, linked to the blue Hyundai i30 (NSW) BG11XR, the Comanchero OMCG and murder of ISKANDER”. There were no communications to which my attention was drawn, other than those between the accused and Chris Kotsis and Tony Nehme, the operators and / or owners of Sydney Prestige, demonstrating the nature of any association between the accused and Sydney Prestige.

The agreed facts state that Mr Lambroglou’s agreed facts for sentence include the statement “About 3.30pm on 12 May 2022, the Offender (Mr Lambroglou) attended Sydney Prestige Auto Body at 162 Victoria Road Marrickville which is where Jamal Salameh (a very close associate of Tarek Zahed) operated his business, LMV Enterprises.”

Detective Coppola agreed in cross-examination that examination of the phone of the accused demonstrated he was in the trade of purchasing and selling motor vehicles, there were a significant number of messages inquiring about the sale or purchase of motor vehicles, and the repair of motor vehicles, across the spectrum of costs. There were many photographs of vehicle compliance plates, vehicle advertisements, and vehicles in workshops.

Exhibit 11, tendered for the accused, contained about 330 pages of photographs of cars, licences, registration plates and papers located on the phone of the accused when it was subject to a Cellebrite examination. Detective Coppola accepted in cross-examination this was just a sample, and there would have been many more.

The Crown relied upon the statement of Bruce Groenewegen dated 10 August 2023. He is a Detective Sergeant in the New South Wales police force with specialised knowledge, based on his training, study and experience of outlaw motorcycle gangs since 1996. He provided evidence that the Comanchero motorcycle club (“the Comanchero") is an outlaw motorcycle gang, and recognised as one of the major outlaw motorcycle gangs in Australia, having chapters in most states and one territory. Nationally there are believed to be about 200 members and nominees of the Comanchero. Detective Groenewegen described approximately 10 chapters of the Comanchero as currently active in Australia. He provided evidence as to the roles of each classification of membership of the Comanchero outlaw motorcycle gang; such as associate, nominee/prospect or “hang around”. A hang around is a man who has considerably more access to the Comanchero than a general member of the public would, but is not considered a member.

Many office bearing positions were described, with a strictly hierarchical regime enforced. The Sergeant at Arms, a position occurring at least at chapter and national level, is responsible for the discipline of members and for formulating and coordinating attacks on rival motorcycle clubs during times of conflict. Other senior positions include a Lieutenant and the Comanchero Master Sergeant, which is a national rank. The Comanchero Master Sergeant holds a position of authority over local Sergeants at Arms. There are Vice-Presidents (elected) at least at chapter and national level, this role supporting the President. The President (at world and national levels) or Commander (at State and chapter levels) is also usually elected, and has absolute authority over his area of responsibility.

Detective Groenewegen explained aspects of the culture of outlaw motorcycle gangs, including their commission of acts of violence and use of firearms, and involvement in organised criminal activity and violent conflict. He expressed the view that members of the Comanchero are very likely to respond to a member being shot with commensurate or escalated violence towards an individual or members or property of an organisation, including rival outlaw motorcycle gangs. He expressed the opinion that it was extremely likely that the Sergeant at Arms of the Comanchero would be responsible for coordinating a response to a member being shot.

Reporting in the NSW Police database of a conflict occurring during the period between 27 April and 14 May 2022, and continuing to occur, was explained by the witness. This was between entities referred to variously as the “Hamzy”, “Alameddine” and “Ahmed" organised crime networks. Detective Groenewegen has otherwise misspelled Mr Ahmad’s name as “Ahmed” in his report. He stated others are also recorded. He stated: “However, the nature and distinguishing characteristics of these … conflicts falls outside my specialised knowledge and expertise." He stated senior members of the Comanchero have been the subject of violent incidents over the last two years, and that “Based on my specialised knowledge, these incidents are consistent with those senior members being involved in conflicts with criminals. There is insufficient admissible information available to me to make any further opinion about the nature and scope of these conflicts.”

The witness expressed the view that Tarek Zahed has an association with an entity, or members of an entity, described as the “Alameddine OCN”, OCN being the acronym used by him for an “Organised Crime Network”. Detective Groenewegen stated that the available information was also consistent with Tarek Zahed being the national Sergeant at Arms of the Comanchero, having had an association with the Comanchero since 2009.

The information available to Detective Groenewegen is inconsistent with Omar Zahed ever having been a member of the Comanchero in any capacity. The available information is inconsistent with Mohammed Alameddine being or ever having been a member of the Comanchero in any capacity, but consistent with him having been, and remaining, a close associate of Tarek Zahed. The available information is inconsistent with the accused being or having ever been a member of the Comanchero in any capacity, but is consistent with him being a close associate of Tarek Zahed.

Detective Groenewegen stated that the available information is inconsistent with an association between LMV Enterprises (of 132 Bonds Road Riverwood) and the Comanchero on an organisational basis. However, he says “The information is consistent with the owner of the business having an association with members and associates of the Comanchero, although the exact nature of the relationship cannot be determined conclusively." He says the available information is inconsistent with any association existing between Sydney Prestige (of 162 Victoria Road Marrickville) and the Comanchero on an organisational basis, but consistent with a possible association between the business owner and members and associates of the Comanchero, with, however, insufficient information to determine the nature and extent of the association. He does not indicate who he understands the owner of Sydney Prestige to be. As noted above, the evidence of Detective Mangan was that it was operated by Mr Tony Nehme and Mr George Kotsis. Detective Mangan did not indicate whether they were owner-operators. The statement of Mr Akkawi, a window tinter spoken to by police in connection with the Forester used in connection with the murder of Mr Ahmad, indicates an understanding that Sydney Prestige was owned by someone named Tony.

The statement of Detective Sergeant Flanagan expresses the opinion that the degree of planning involved in killing Mr Ahmad, which involved the use of multiple stolen vehicles, an illegal firearm, multiple offenders, use of false cloned registration plates and use of encrypted communications is indicative of a targeted and premeditated murder plot funded and implemented by an organised criminal syndicate.

Mr Ahmad was heavily involved in criminal activity. He was the subject of 771 police intelligence reports for a wide category of offences including murder, organised crime, firearms offences, gangs, outlaw motor motorcycle gangs and drugs as well as public place shootings and crime in gaol. Over the course of his lifetime he was sentenced to a total of over 16 years imprisonment and served approximately 13 years of that time in custody. It was generally accepted by police and other members of the public that Mr Ahmad was heavily and actively involved in serious and organised criminal activity in Bankstown and surrounding areas.

On the evidence before me, Mr Ahmad's last custodial sentence was imposed by the NSW Supreme Court on 5 June 2020 being a six year sentence with a non-parole period of four years and nine months for manslaughter. This sentence was imposed in relation to the public place shooting death of Safwan Charbaji outside a smash repair business in Condell Park on 9 April 2016. Mr Ahmad’s brother Walid Ahmad was murdered during a targeted public place shooting at Bankstown Centro on 29 April 2016, less than three weeks after Mr Charbaji was killed. Police suspected that this murder was retribution for the killing of Mr Charbaji.

Mr Ahmad was released from prison in September 2021. He departed Australia for Lebanon on 28 December 2021 after members of his family and police had warned him that he may be under threat from a number of persons known to him who wished to have him murdered.

Mr Ahmad was married with children. Whilst Mr Ahmad was in prison for the manslaughter of Mr Charbaji, his wife commenced a relationship with Mohammed Alameddine which is believed to have resulted in Mr Ahmad making a number of threats towards Mr Alameddine. Detective Flanagan states in his October 2022 statement:

Detective Flanagan states that Intelligence Reports suggest that there were contracts offered by organised criminal groups for the murder of Mr Ahmad for purported sums of between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000. He arrived back in Australia on 2 April 2022, and as indicated earlier was murdered on 27 April 2022. He had been allowed to travel overseas, being granted special permission by the NSW Parole Board to leave Australia, based partially on information received by NSW police that he was in imminent danger of being murdered. The information was considered credible, and suggested planning was underway by rival organised criminal groups to carry out the killing of Mr Ahmad as soon as possible.

Negam Altai is the owner of Menai Car Repairs which is a mechanic workshop located in Menai. She often deals with Bankstown Auto, particularly with a male with an Australian accent named Dale. A male in his early 20s called Merwan would often deliver the items to her workshop. She knew Khaled to be the owner of the business and to be Merwan's father. Although she had only met Khaled once, she estimated having met Merwan approximately 15 times.

In December 2021 a customer of Ms Altai was interested in selling the Hyundai after ongoing mechanical problems, for which he did not want to spend any further money. Ms Altai was in touch with Khaled from Bankstown Auto about this. Khaled asked Ms Altai to send photographs of the vehicle and she did so on 14 December 2021. She took 13 photographs and sent them. Ms Altai organised the sale of the car from her customer to Khaled, who said he would send his son to the workshop to purchase the vehicle in the next few days. Detective Sonter obtained nine photographs from Ms Altai of messages sent by her to Khaled Salameh in furtherance of the sale of the car.

Shortly after 14 December 2021 Merwan Salameh junior attended the Menai workshop with another male whom Ms Altai had seen once before. Merwan spoke with Ms Altai and said that the Hyundai was for the male he was with. He said he expected it may be scrapped or used until the registration expired. Exhibit 6 includes information from Ms Altai’s husband Jack (head mechanic) that he understood Bankstown Auto may have had a spare transmission for the vehicle, and its purpose was use as a “runaround.” Merwan was handed the key, and provided Ms Altai with cash for the car.

The Transport for NSW certificate of registration transfer dated 14 December 2021 recorded the sale of the Hyundai from the client of Menai Car Repairs to Merwan Salameh on 14 December 2021 for $1,000. The transfer to Merwan Salameh, of the Roselands premises, was entered onto the relevant system on 21 December 2021.

Images obtained from the phone of the accused include a photograph of a photograph of the NSW driver licence of Frank Sassin (created and modified on 19 January 2022) and photographs of the front of the Hyundai (created and modified at about 9:15 am on 20 January 2022).

On 20 January 2022 the accused and his brother Merwan exchanged messages on WhatsApp. At 9:21 am Merwan Salameh sent the accused a photograph of his own driver licence. A telephone call for 19 seconds from the accused to Merwan Salameh occurred at 10:29 am. At 10:36 am the accused sent Merwan Salameh images of Frank Sassin’s licence and a message “Put yesterday’s date and $1,000.” He asked to be sent the screenshot once done. At 10:38 am Merwan Salameh sent the accused an image of a receipt of notice of disposal regarding the Hyundai of the same date and time. The accused shortly after sent a message “Perfect save it on ur email please”, shortly after which Merwan responded “yeah i saved it also i forwarded a email for homehill just got it now”.

An authorised inspection report for the Hyundai on 20 January 2022 was undertaken at “Optimum Automotive” at 6 Commercial Road Kingsgrove. Transport for NSW documents confirm notice of disposal and transfer of registration of the Hyundai at 10:38 am to Frank Sassin. At an unknown time on 20 January 2022 a compulsory third party policy was issued for the Hyundai to Merwan Salameh, date of birth 1 January 1969.

The Forensic Analyst Report of Renee Summerfield indicates that she could provide no information about the origin, location and capturing device of the images of Frank Sassin’s licence forwarded by the accused to his brother.

At some stage the wheel rims on the Hyundai were replaced, using those from a white Hyundai to which Bankstown Auto had access, having bought it from the previous owner (or his insurer) in October 2021 after it was written off following hail damage. This information was discovered upon analysis of the electronic equipment seized in the search of Bankstown Auto.

On 10 March 2023 Detective Senior Constable Bale placed a form of demand upon the younger Merwan Salameh pursuant to s 14 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW). He was told that he was required to provide the name and residential address of the driver of and any passengers in the Hyundai between 14 December 2021 and 21 January 2022, being the time frame the offence was or may have been committed. He had been informed that the police reasonably suspected that the Hyundai was or may have been used in the commission of an indictable offence, that being the murder of Rami Iskander on 14 May 2022. He stated “This car from start I bought this car from a lady at Menai car repairs. In that time I put it on Facebook or Gumtree until someone bought it. I'm not sure of the exact dates. I bought it a year or a year and a bit ago.” He stated that he had had it for about a month.

Merwan Salameh was in the presence of a lawyer, and the police provided him with a special caution in accordance with s 89A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). He was asked further questions and said he could not actually remember the details of the person he sold the car to. He said, when asked where he sold the vehicle, that he usually uses Facebook or Gumtree, or buyers would come to his house at Roselands; but with this particular vehicle, he could not recall. He said he could also not recall in relation to this particular vehicle how he disposed of it, but stated “Obviously I would have went RMS. I don't recall which one.” He said he sometimes does this online.

Merwan Salameh was asked who was with him when he bought the car. He said he remembered picking it up from a mechanic shop and that probably one of the boys from the workshop came with him. He said he last saw the car when he sold it. He was asked whether there was any way he would have the details of the person he sold it to, and said that he would have to check with RMS and Gumtree.

The form states “Showed Facebook account with advertisement and enquiries”, police then asking “Do you recall specifically who sold that car?” He answered “That specific time sometimes I sell cars, sometimes it's my Dad.” Detective Bale asked for permission to video or photograph his Facebook advertisement and the form indicates that a video recording was taken by police of the Facebook Marketplace advertisement being viewed. Merwan Salameh stated that he did not make any modifications, and the way it appears in the advertisement they were discussing was the same way he purchased and sold it. As far as I am aware the Crown has not adduced any evidence of the police video recording of this advertisement. The Crown tendered two USBs with multiple audio-visual clips, but as far as I was advised these related to the recordings shown in Court in connection with aspects of exhibit 6 and the telecommunication evidence of Detective Coppola. There was evidence in the Crown case that a search of Merwan Salameh’s Gumtree accounts did not reveal advertisement for the sale of the Hyundai.

Merwan Salameh was asked whether, during the month that he owned the Hyundai, anyone else drove it and said that maybe his sister or his father had driven it. He said it was parked sometimes at the shop and sometimes at his home at Roselands. When asked to clarify what he meant by “the shop” he said “My dad's wrecking yard - Bankstown City Spares” and confirmed that this was at 813 Canterbury Road. He was asked whether he agreed that it would be cash or transfer when he sold a car and then asked specifically about the bank account he would receive the transfer, and provided police with some information as to the name and banking institution that would have been used had it been a transfer. He was asked whether when he transfers a car he usually looks at the buyer’s licence and does it diligently, and said “yeah I fill out all the forms you need the details.”

Detective Sonter states that he became aware that Merwan Salameh (no date of birth) had owned the Hyundai. He states that on 2 March 2023 he and other police attended Bankstown Auto at Lakemba for the purpose of speaking with Khaled Salameh about his knowledge of the Hyundai. Khaled Salameh was within the office, as was the accused. Detective Sonter spoke with Khaled Salameh separately from the accused. Police told him that they were aware that Merwan Salameh owned a blue Hyundai i30 and that K Salameh organised the sale of the vehicle for Merwan. The statement does not indicate that police specified to Khaled Salameh whether they meant Khaled Salameh’s brother Merwan or son Merwan. Mr Salameh said “I know everyone involved and everything about it.” The Crown adduced no evidence from Khaled Salameh, nor of any reason for not adducing evidence from him. Detective Sonter’s statement does not explain the basis of his knowledge that Khaled Salameh organised the sale of the vehicle for Merwan, although this understanding has some consistency with the representations made to police by Merwan Salameh on 10 March 2023.

The Crown tendered a statement from Frank Sassin indicating that he did not purchase the Hyundai, had no knowledge of it, and is a law-abiding person.

The accused is alleged to have met Chris Kotsis and Tony Nehme (operators of Sydney Prestige) and Ali Osman between 10:25 to 11:27 am on 11 May 2022 at Roastville Café, across the road from Sydney Prestige. CCTV stills of this meeting are contained on pages 18 and 19 of exhibit 6. It is suggested that a tattoo on the hand of the man said to be the accused is visible, and is the same as that shown in the forensic procedure photographs taken after the accused’s arrest. By 11:28 am the men had left the café. The phone service of the accused was used in the general Marrickville area at 11:41 am, and from 12:02 pm away from the Marrickville area, connecting with a cell tower in close proximity to Bankstown Auto, Kingsgrove. At 12:11 pm the Hyundai was observed for the first time parked outside Sydney Prestige, and it moved to the driveway by 12:48 pm. The telephone service of the accused was used at 12:38 pm in the vicinity of a tower called Sydenham Workshops (closer back towards the Marrickville area than the Kingsgrove area where it had been; although covering also other suburbs of the inner west including Leichhardt, Ashfield, Dulwich Hill and Bardwell Park).

In CCTV footage from Roastville Café at 1:11 pm, the Hyundai was visible in the driveway of Sydney Prestige. At 1:12 pm it was not. Although the Crown Case Statement said that there was an image of a male alleged to be the accused walking near the vehicle at that time, as does exhibit 6, such an identification cannot be made from the relevant image, and was not the subject of any closing submission. Images captured at 2:10 pm and 2:12 pm of a man in the driveway of Sydney Prestige, said to be believed by police to be the accused, are also unclear. Insofar as there are images in exhibit 6 which have been said to be believed to be the accused, and issue is taken with this, then the objection taken by the accused to non-expert opinion evidence of police officers is to be upheld. The evidence did not suggest any police officer to be in a better position to make a comparison between the accused and the person in the photographs than me as the tribunal of fact, and their statements of belief that the accused is the person in the photographs are irrelevant and thus not admissible: Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; [2001] HCA 50. It was of course appropriate for the Crown Prosecutor and / or police to explain to me that it is the Crown contention that the person in those photographs is the accused.

At 10:22 pm on 11 May CCTV inside Sydney Prestige captured Chris Kotsis, Tony Nehme and an unknown male conversing.

Over a number of pages in exhibit 6 the movements of Mr Lambroglou on 11 and 12 May 2022 relevant to plates and cars ultimately used in the murder were recorded.

Images between 3:29 pm and 3:32 pm on 12 May 2022 are said to show Mr Lambroglou’s white iLoad van, driven by him, captured by the Roastville Café CCTV. Five images of it parked in the driveway of Sydney Prestige show a person (probably a male) approach the front passenger side door and allegedly walk away with a green bag. The male is said to be shown to enter and exit the front passenger seat. The jumper the male is wearing is said to be similar to that worn by the accused in the forensic procedure photographs taken of him on his arrest. The accused was photographed wearing a black or dark hooded jumper with the words “Sydney Prestige Auto Body” and an apparent logo for that company printed fairly faintly on the back. The person who approached Mr Lambroglou was wearing what may only be described generically as a dark hooded jumper. It is not clear whether or not it has anything printed on the back of it. Mr Lambroglou drove away.

As recorded above at [43], the agreed facts in Mr Lambroglou’s sentence proceedings indicated that at about 3:30 pm on 11 May 2022 he attended Sydney Prestige. They further indicate that he was dropped off by an Uber at 164 Victoria Road Marrickville at 8:32 pm on 12 May, and that he collected the Hyundai from Marrickville and drove it to Coveney Street, Bexley North. His phone records and CCTV footage in exhibit 6 are consistent with such a trip between 8:42 and 9:00 pm.

The following day at 2:11 pm Dean Carr, said in Detective Mangan’s evidence to be an “associate of a number of the Comancheros and Alameddine organised crime people”, was at Sydney Prestige. Although Detective Mangan’s evidence suggested that the CCTV footage showed Mr Carr talking with the accused, exhibit 6 states clearly in relation to the two different relevant stills that it is alleged he is speaking with Chris Kotsis who, as noted above, was the operator of the business. I take it that the reference to the accused in Detective Mangan’s evidence was probably a slip. If not, there is not sufficient clarity in the still for me to find that it was the accused, if such meeting even has any relevance.

Detective Coppola identified that the accused participated in a WhatsApp group chat conversation with at least 23 other participants where they had conversations relating to the ongoing conflict between Organised Crime Networks and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. There were then some smaller sub-groups involving communications on similar topics.

The Crown relied on the Cellebrite downloads to demonstrate the accused’s communication with others in the lead up to the murder of Mr Ahmad and the accused’s communication with others after the shooting of the Zahed brothers, including the accused’s familiarity with the media reporting and the suggestion that there was a bounty on Tarek Zahed.

The evidence related to communications of many other shootings beyond those relevant to this trial, from 2020. For example there were messages to and from the accused regarding a September 2021 shooting. The group of 24 continued well after the murder of Mr Iskander to exchange media releases relevant to these organised crime wars.

The Crown relied upon communications on 6 September 2021 by the accused to his partner of a photograph of himself as a toddler on a bike, saying “ACCA1331 from a baby” and “I got my colours as a kid” telling her (when she did not know what 1331 meant) “it’s the commonchero number lol”.

On 2 May 2022 Chris Kotsis sent the accused a message asking for “T’s” number so he could message him. The accused sent a mobile number which, with an email address, was saved in the contacts stored on his phone as “Tz” with a photo of Tarek Zahed. The two sent each other a number of files shortly after the Zahed brothers’ shooting. Chris Kotsis sent the accused a message “Be careful my bro please”.

About 8:05 pm on 10 May 2022 (shortly after the shooting of the Zahed brothers), the accused received a WhatsApp message stating, “Funeral for omar will be tomorrow friday inshallah at 11 30…”. The accused forwarded this message to someone at 8:06 pm on the same day and added, “We go together”.

At 9:07 pm on 10 May 2022, “Jamie” sent a WhatsApp message to the accused which read, “Jay bro I’m very sorry for your loss. Mums I am. I know he was your brother doesn’t matter how difficult he was.”

At 9:39 am on 11 May 2022 the accused sent a WhatsApp message to “Bill Zahwi Work” that read, “Hey brother his doing well came out of operation and stable”. “Bill Zahwi Work” sent the accused a message stating he was worried about him (the accused).

Shortly before midday on 11 May 2022 the accused and his partner sent text messages to one another. Seemingly referring to Tarek Zahed, the accused said he was out of surgery and stable, and was still in a coma (which was normal) and would be for a few days. At 12:02 pm on 11 May 2022, the phone of the accused was used to call Tarek Zahed’s wife twice. The duration on both occasions was zero seconds. At 12:27 pm the accused sent a text message to his partner saying “My hearts broken for Omar I love that bloke to death.”

At 1:38 pm on 11 May 2022 the partner of the accused sent him a WhatsApp message that read “Sorry babe my client is brownie’s cousin she was telling me. So I didn’t want to say much”. The accused replied “Don’t say a word”, “Nothing”, “Don’t talk in front of her either”, “Nothing I mean nothing” and “Don’t even say who I am”.

At 2:49 pm on 11 May 2022, “Jamie” sent a WhatsApp message to the accused containing a link to a video of the scene of the shooting of the Zahed brothers.

At 8:54 pm on 11 May 2022, the accused sent WhatsApp messages to Tony Nehme each containing one page of a newspaper article “Lengthy list of suspects for Zahed’s attempt assassination”. The article included speculation that many people and groups had a motive to kill Tarek Zahed, with a list of suspects as long as his record. Sydney’s underworld was said to be “buzzing with theories”. Videos taken minutes after the bullets struck the Zahed brothers were said to have been shared, showing the work of paramedics. A former bikie was quoted as saying people would be captured and tortured to give up information about who was behind it, and that finding this out would not be easy. It was said that many had jumped to the conclusion that this was a revenge hit for the execution of Mahmoud Ahmad with the help of the Hamze family; but multiple underworld and senior law enforcement sources were quoted as saying that they believed it unlikely that a joining of the Hamze and Ahmad clans was behind the shooting, with a feeling they would not be able to come up with the cash for this kind of a hit. Tarek Zahed was said to have been a target of other bikie gangs wanting to settle old scores. The murder of a popular named person who had been rumoured to be patching over to the Bandidos, which had been blamed on the Comanchero, was raised as a possible basis for revenge. A source was quoted as suggesting that the distraction by the current Alameddine and Hamze war offered a perfect time to settle old scores. The strong possibility of responsibility at the hands of the Lone Wolf bikie gang was raised, as well as the Mongols. The article stated that Tarek Zahed still lay in a coma.

At 10:54 pm on 11 May Chris Kotsis sent the accused a very brief video, which seems to be at a hospital, inferentially that where Tarek Zahed was a patient.

WhatsApp communication between the accused and Tony Nehme include the following exchange at 9:22 to 9:23 pm on 12 May 2022. Mr Nehme asked “U heard anything U talk to his wife”, to which the accused responded “Yea I did I spoke to him on FaceTime keep it dark please.” Mr Nehme said “Good news” and the accused said “Looks good bro opened his eyes when he heard my voice” then corrected this to “eye”. They both expressed hope that he would come good for his family, and see again.

Annexures 16 and 17 to Detective Coppola’s statement include communications between the accused and the wife of Omar Zahed between 14 and 17 May 2022, and between the accused and another woman, that seem directed towards settling outstanding business dealings between the accused and the late Omar Zahed, including as to fines incurred by his use of the accused’s vehicles.

Between 9:40 and 10:00 am on 14 May 2022 two people in the 24 large WhatsApp chat group the accused participated in conversed regarding Yasser Ahmad’s step son having just been “knocked”, proceeding to confirm he was Brownie Ahmad’s nephew.

Aspects of the evidence of the officer in charge of the investigation, Detective Mangan, have been referred to above. In cross-examination he stated that no one has ever been charged as a shooter in relation to the murder of Mr Ahmad, Omar Zahed or Rami Iskander, nor the shooting of Tarek Zahed. In 2026 a number of people are going to trial in connection with Mr Ahmad’s murder. With one exception described below, there was no evidence as to who these people are, nor of the evidence on which the charges against them is based. Mr Salameh is facing a charge alleging false registration of the Forester to Mr Eid at that trial.

The statement of Detective Sergeant Flanagan indicates that on 3 May 2022 he approached, initially, a Mr Delcol, driving the Forester in Canterbury. A white Corolla was driving nearby. Mr Delcol stated that a friend had asked him to collect the Forester. About 40 minutes later the white Corolla was seen parked in Campsie. Detective Flanagan and a number of other police approached a male nearby known to be XY, who was placed under arrest in relation to a vehicle used in the murder of a man the previous week in Greenacre. He was later released from custody pending further investigation. However on 9 November 2022 XY was again arrested, in relation to the murder of Mahmoud Ahmad. There is no information otherwise in the evidence before me as to who he is nor about his alleged involvement is in the murder of Mr Ahmad.

Tarek Zahed was subject to a Serious Crime Prevention order issued in April 2021. As a result of that order his legal representatives provided indications to police when he was proposing to travel to Sydney from Victoria, and the vehicles he would use or be conveyed in. As part of compliance with this order his legal representative indicated that he was intending to use a particular vehicle whilst in New South Wales and that this vehicle was owned by Bankstown Auto and / or the accused. These indications of intended use were 28 and 29 December 2021, 11 February 2022, 3 March 2022, and 17 and 18 March 2022. The 17 March 2022 notification included reference to intended use of a different vehicle owned by LMV Enterprises and / or the accused.

Further, in terms of evidence of links, I note that the statement of Detective Sergeant Flanagan dated 17 April 2023 states that Task Force EREBUS was created to manage a number of murder investigations “that are directly linked.” These are: firstly, the shooting murder of Mr Ahmad who is described as being “Ahmad OCG Member/Leader”; secondly, the 10 May 2022 shooting murder of Omar Zahed and shooting of Tarek Zahed, described as “Comanchero OMCG member/affiliate”; and thirdly, the 14 May 2022 shooting murder of Mr Iskander who was said in brackets to be "Ahmad OCG member". The opening address for the accused expressly stated that regarding the Mahmoud Ahmad murder, utterances of opinion or speculation that may be contained within the statements are not accepted. The statement of Detective Coppola states that Mr Iskandar was a relative of Mr Ahmad and “linked to the AHMAD OCN”.

On 9 March 2022 the Forester was purchased from Pickles Auctions Newcastle by Bankstown Auto, for $1,256. At some stage after that date but before the arrest of the accused on 14 December 2022, a photograph was taken on the phone of the accused of that vehicle in the front yard of the Roselands premises. Detective Coppola described six images consistent with the Forester photographed at the Salameh family home sent to the accused. On 23 March 2022 the accused’s brother Merwan Salameh (using the WhatsApp handle “Mick Bro”) sent several images of the Forester to the accused.

Detective Coppola’s statement explains that an examination of the accused’s phone revealed that on 21 April 2022 he applied for compulsory third party insurance over the Forester on behalf of his business LMV Enterprises.

On 21 April 2022 the accused attended the Marrickville office of Service NSW and provided documentation requesting registration plates to be issued to the Forester. He took possession of registration plates DD72XL for it.

The statement of Detective Sergeant Flanagan dated 17 April 2023 states that paperwork lodged by the accused indicated that the vehicle had been sold to Abdul-Rahman Eid of Guildford. A statement obtained from Mr Eid indicates that he did not purchase that vehicle and has no knowledge of it.

The statement of Detective Senior Constable Omar indicates that the documentation was obtained in late June 2022 as a result of liaising with Transport for NSW in relation to the Forester: he refers to a transfer transaction receipt dated 24 June 2022 in the name of Mr Eid, which occurred at Service NSW Centre Marrickville 2204, as well as registration and disposal documents. None of these documents are attached to his statement, and I am not aware of any other material relating to the 24 June 2022 transfer, or whether this is a mistake.

A number of documents are attached to Mr Eid’s statement. These include Part B of the registration transfer details. This document is dated 21 April 2022 and said to be signed by the seller, who declared that the details were correct. The sale date was described as 21 April 2022, with a sale price or market value (whichever is greater) of $1,000. The buyer’s name was stated to be that of Mr Eid, and there is a signature purportedly of his, nominating the accused as his authorised representative. Also included is an application for registration, dated 21 April 2022, with the name of LMV Enterprises P/L, address 132 Bonds Road Riverwood. The purchase or acquisition details nominated were 21 April 2022 with the sale price or market value (whichever is higher) of $500. The type of use intended for the vehicle ticked was “Resale” which meant “second hand vehicle held for resale by licensed motor dealers.” The verification description signed by the office was “dealer”. The documents indicate an authorised inspection was carried out on that date. There is a receipt for payment of $390 for six months insurance from 21 April 2022. The vehicle’s usage was described as “SALE – Re-sale by Dealer”. The insured was LMV Enterprises.

Call records support the proposition that on 21, 22 and 23 April 2022 the accused had contact with Gaby Akkawi who runs Mobile Tinting Sydney, a car tinting business. The phone records of the accused support his presence in some proximity to the business address of Mobile Tinting Sydney on 22 and 25 April 2022, but this evidence is very general. Mr Akkawi’s statement includes identification of a photograph of the accused as a person he knows as “J”, for whom he has tinted several cars at his own (Mr Akkawi’s) business premises and at Sydney Prestige, said to be owned by someone named Tony. His Google calendar records a scheduled tint of two windows for “J” on 21 April 2022. He stated he has no recollection of the job, but that this was unremarkable given the amount of car windows he tints. He has tinted over 15,000 cars. He has no recollection of the calls or text messages between him and the accused around that time. He has no recollection of whether the accused specifically has left cars at or collected cars from his work premises at Georges Hall, but confirmed that clients do sometimes do this.

Detective Flanagan’s statement indicates that in the middle of the day on 25 April 2022 the Forester and a Toyota Hilux with registration plates 66190 were travelling close together in the vicinity of the M5 at King Georges Road. His statement says this registration was allocated to a white Toyota Hilux owned by Bankstown Auto on 25 April 2022, this company being owned and operated by the Salameh family.

The evidence suggests that the Forester may have been in the possession of people connected (knowingly or not) with the shooting of Mr Ahmad by shortly before 9:00 pm on 25 April 2022, as a white Subaru Forester with tinted windows and yellow and black registration plates was then captured on CCTV footage from Lakemba and Peel Streets, Belmore, in close proximity with a black Porsche SUV.

The Forester was located by police on 2 May 2022. It was at that stage displaying cloned registration plates. The legitimate vehicle associated with those plates was a different white Forester, the subject of a number of transactions between Minchinbury based motor vehicle businesses in April 2022. On 2 May 2022 the Forester had window tinting which had been recently attached, as evidenced by a folded piece of sticker that is used by window tinters (and of a kind used by Mr Akkawi) to remind owners to not wind down the window too soon after tinting.

The submission was advanced in closing for the Crown that there were three (major) things the evidence proved; namely: a) that the accused had previously arranged to have the Hyundai registered fraudulently on 20 January 2022, b) that the accused made that car available to people affiliated with the Comanchero OMCG on 12 May 2022, and c) that the accused knew that the car was to be used in retaliation for the attempted murder of Tarek Zahed and the murder of his brother Omar Zahed a few days earlier on 10 May 2022.

Apart from matters of law, and stating the three propositions above, the written outline of submissions for the Crown focused on the state of mind of the accused. As to the actual provision of the vehicle and its fraudulent registration, it was simply submitted that exhibits 1 and 6 showed that the accused (through his brother Merwan Salameh) purchased the Hyundai on about 14 December 2021, he arranged the registration of the car to Frank Sassin who had no knowledge of the car on 19/20 January 2022, the Hyundai was at Sydney Prestige on 11 May 2022 and on 12 May 2022 the accused made the Hyundai available to Mr Lambroglou who attended Sydney Prestige. Similarly in the Crown opening submission it was contended that the accused, through his brother Merwan, purchased the car on about 14 December 2021. In closing oral submissions it was contended that the accused sent his brother to register the car.

The Crown Prosecutor’s oral closing submissions accepted that the accused was involved in more than one business buying and selling cars. The Crown Case Statement asserted that the accused operated his business LMV Enterprises at Sydney Prestige. However this was not reflected in the evidence, other than the agreed facts in Mr Lombroglou’s sentence proceedings referred to above at [43], and was not a proposition advanced in the Crown’s submissions in Court. The evidence is that LMV Enterprises was located in Riverwood. There were two vehicles owned by LMV Enterprises present at Sydney Prestige on 11 May 2022.

The Crown coincidence notice contended that the evidence of the two events (the provision of the third car for the murder of Mr Ahmad and the provision of the third car for the murder of Mr Iskander) was relied upon to prove the accused did a particular act (namely, provide the third getaway car to be positioned in advance of the shootings of both events) as well as to have a particular state of mind (knowledge at the time he provided the Hyundai that it would be used in a shooting and / or that the shooting murder was within the scope of what he foresaw that the principal offender(s) would do). However, other than noting the terms of the served notice, the Crown advanced no submission at trial that the evidence of the provision of the Forester could be used to prove that the accused provided the Hyundai. The Crown reliance on coincidence reasoning was squarely articulated as a back-up to the submission that the murder of Mr Ahmad (and the ensuing communications of the accused and his associates about it) was relevant context evidence to establishing the state of mind of the accused at the time he provided the Hyundai, as an alternative (but not necessary) way of establishing that state of mind. The Crown submission was that it did not need to rely on coincidence reasoning to establish that state of mind.

Although coincidence reasoning was not articulated as a method of proving that the accused supplied the Hyundai to Mr Lambroglou, the terms of the notice were not expressly disavowed either.

The Crown Case Statement asserted that it is believed that the murder of Rami Iskander was a direct retaliation for the shooting of the Zahed brothers, only four nights earlier. This belief expressed by the solicitor who wrote the Crown Case Statement was not developed by way of evidence or submissions in this trial. The evidence and submissions were focused on the Crown’s proof that the accused’s state of mind was one of appreciating that this was the purpose of the provision of the Hyundai.

The only submissions advanced that could be seen to address the contention that the vehicle was provided to people associated with the Comanchero included paragraph 35 of the written submissions: “The Crown relies on the evidence of Bruce Groenewegen to establish inherent characteristics of the Comanchero OMCG including acts of violence and the use of firearms, as well as Tarek Zahed’s status and role within the Comanchero at the relevant time.”

The Crown secondly relied upon the statement of the wife of Tarek Zahed at about 5:05 pm on 12 May 2022 “well don’t worry, they’re going to get shot. Whoever fucken knocked my fucken brother-in-law and my husband they’re coming. Don’t worry it’s all going to get done very soon mate. Very soon.” The Crown relied upon this for a hearsay purpose, as evidence of the truth of what she said. This evidence was submitted to prove that Tarek Zahed’s wife then had direct knowledge that there was already a retaliatory shooting planned.

There was a passing reference to the Crown allegation as to whom the vehicle was supplied, in addressing the accused’s alleged state of mind in doing so. It was submitted that the close time frame between the shooting of the Zahed brothers “and this accused providing a car to his associates” bore on his state of mind. The only other submission by the Crown relevant to proof that the accused provided the car on 12 May 2022, specifically to people affiliated with the Comanchero, was that the scant detail contained in Mr Lambroglou’s agreed facts for sentence can provide no assistance to the Court in its determination. The Crown Case Statement had included an assertion that between 8:15 and 9:00 am on 11 May 2022 Mr Lambroglou travelled to meet with a senior member of the Comanchero, however there was no evidence of this in exhibit 6, no evidence supporting this that I am aware of or that was drawn to my attention, and no such submission advanced. The expert report of Detective Groenewegen does not suggest Mr Lambroglou was a member of the Comanchero or had any affiliation with it.

In oral submissions it was acknowledged that the fifth of six important issues the Crown was left to prove at trial was the provision of the Hyundai by the accused on 12 May 2022. It was submitted that pages 20-27 of exhibit 6 would satisfy me of this proposition.

The Crown referred to the evidence of Mr Ahmad’s criminal associations (and the further written submission as to the evidence regarding this included aspects of that discussed above at [54]-[58]). This reference was made, however, in the context of addressing the state of mind of the accused, given the articles and other recordings being circulated between the accused and his associates.

It was submitted that the evidence showed a close association and friendship between the accused and Tarek Zahed. The messages shortly after the shooting on 10 May 2022 were said to demonstrate this close association.

A submission was advanced that the results of the execution of a search warrant “of the workshop” included location of paperwork and business records of Tarek Zahed, supporting the inference that Tarek Zahed clearly trusted the accused and they had a close association beyond him providing cars to Tarek Zahed and other members of the Comanchero. The evidence relied upon to support this submission was specified in a further written submission forwarded after Court had adjourned for the day. Under a heading “Evidence relating to documents found during the search of the accused’s business”, the evidence of Detective Sonter set out above at [40] was noted.

The submission for the accused is that the Crown has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Hyundai was provided by him to Mr Lambroglou. There was no evidence of him having access to the Hyundai at any time after January 2022. The grainy photograph in exhibit 6 was submitted to be inadequate to prove that the accused met with or spoke with Mr Lambroglou at all. In particular the Crown has not excluded anyone working at Sydney Prestige from attending upon Mr Lambroglou’s van.

It was submitted that any number of people could have driven the Hyundai to Sydney Prestige on 11 May 2022, including Mr Lambroglou. There was a rational prospect of it being at Sydney Prestige for repair work, given the evidence of the history of its mechanical problems and its movement to the driveway of Sydney Prestige before being later moved back to the street. The telephone records and CCTV stills set out in exhibit 6 indicated that even if the accused was in the Marrickville area in the morning, the Hyundai was first visible in the vicinity of Sydney Prestige after the accused had left that area and arrived in the vicinity of Bankstown Auto at 12:10 pm.

It was submitted that the Crown could not establish who murdered Rami Iskander, and there was no establishment of the proposition that it was a revenge hit for the shooting of the Zahed brothers. Insofar as the deceased was related to Mr Ahmad, such evidence as there was indicated that a number of persons known to Mr Ahmad wished to have him murdered in late 2021 and 2022, with rival organised criminal groups planning to kill him as soon as possible. Although there were detailed reasons as to why Mohammed Alameddine would have wanted to murder Mr Ahmad, there was no such evidence relating to the Zahed brothers. The bounty understood by police would provide motivation to an independent and disinterested kill crew, disconnected from any subjective animosity. There was nothing in the evidence indicating whether it was Tarek or Omar Zahed who was the intended subject of the shooting of them. There was no evidence as to who anybody in the Zahed family believed was involved in organising the shooting of Omar and Tarek Zahed.

Mr Thangaraj SC referred to the Crown opening statement that for the Crown to succeed it would need to satisfy the Court that the accused knew, when he provided the Hyundai, that it was to be used in retaliation over the shooting of the Zahed brothers. It was submitted that in the circumstances of this case that knowledge should be regarded as an indispensable intermediate fact, which must fail because the Crown could not even establish that the murder of Mr Iskander was such a retaliatory shooting, far less the accused’s knowledge of that fact.

It was submitted that there was no evidentiary basis for the accused to link Mr Lambroglou with the Comanchero, if the Comanchero had anything to do with the murder of Mr Iskander.

It was submitted that there was no explanation as to why the Crown did not call Mr Lambroglou, Tarek Zahed, Mrs Zahed, or Merwan Salameh.

By way of background, the evidence proves that the accused is a person of good character, and the evidence is inconsistent with the accused being or having ever been a member of the Comanchero in any capacity, including as a “hang around”. The Crown evidence indicates that he is not even able to be described as a “hang around”, but that he is a close associate of Tarek Zahed. Similarly, the available information is inconsistent with an association between his company LMV Enterprises and the Comanchero on an organisational basis, but consistent with the accused having an association with members and associates of the Comanchero, although the exact nature of the relationship cannot be determined conclusively.

Organised criminals obviously enough have numerous relationships with people who are themselves not involved at all in crime, with no criminal dimension to their relationship. Organised criminals see doctors, have their hair cut, need their children taken care of and educated, and buy and hire cars. Further, they may obviously, as with anyone else, make contacts through siblings who are themselves not involved in criminal activity.

Suspicion is no substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. But the fact that Tarek Zahed used vehicles owned by LMV Enterprises or Bankstown Auto on a number of days in 2021 and 2022 (none of which are relevant themselves to this trial) does not even raise or contribute to a suspicion as to the guilt of the accused. That the BMW with the F90 plates was also on occasion used by another member of the Comanchero does not raise a suspicion. Nor does the accused sharing with his partner a photograph of himself as a toddler on a bike, misspelling the name “Commonchero”, raise a suspicion.

The accused, with multiple others, shared and received news stories and other recordings about notorious gang war events in Sydney between 2020 and 2022. This body of evidence does not qualify in any way the evidence that the accused was not and never has been associated with the Comanchero. The stories related to threats to and attacks on members of many different criminal groups. I will return separately to the issue of what the receipt of this material may convey as to his state of mind. For the moment I mention it to indicate that it does not demonstrate any affiliation – loose or otherwise – with any organised criminal group.

That the accused had a relationship involving some emotional connection with Omar Zahed is supported by some of the communications after his murder including his intention to attend his funeral, the consolations expressed to the accused, and his statement that his heart was broken for Omar. The Crown evidence is unequivocal that Omar Zahed was not and has never been a member of the Comanchero in any capacity. Omar Zahed, like his brother, used the accused’s motor vehicle services.

The evidence indicates the accused to be a close associate of Tarek Zahad as an individual. The accused’s seemingly unsuccessful attempts to contact Tarek Zahed’s wife after the shooting, and statement that he had a FaceTime communication during which Tarek Zahed opened an eye, and expressed hope to others he would come good for his family, do not support an especially close relationship, far less a criminal one, between the accused and Tarek Zahed.

Addressing directly that which the Crown is required to prove, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused provided the Hyundai to anybody. The only proven connection between him and the vehicle is for a few minutes in January 2022, four months before the Zaheds were shot, when he assisted in transferring registration of the vehicle.

Contrary to the submission for the Crown, the accused did not buy the vehicle, nor have his brother buy it, nor have his brother register it. The evidence is that although the younger Merwan Salameh physically bought the car (in terms of handing over money for it and collecting it, and being the person to whom registration was transferred), the purchase was that of Mr Khaled Salameh. He had negotiated the sale with Ms Altai. It may be that Khaled Salameh’s initial intended use of the vehicle was for one of the young men who worked at Bankstown Auto, as the combination of the evidence of Ms Altai, exhibit 6, and answers to the form of demand placed on Merwan Salameh indicates. There is no evidence at all that the accused had anything to do with the purchase of the Hyundai.

The account of Merwan Salameh is that he sold the vehicle after about a month, and he thought that perhaps his sister or his father may have driven it in that intervening period. Although Merwan Salameh initially said he thought the sale was through Gumtree, he said he was not sure. The evidence indicates that his Facebook Marketplace advertisement was later accessed and video recorded by police. Although he did not sell the Hyundai to Frank Sassin, there was no challenge, by way of cross-examination or submission, to this account of Merwan Salameh to police that he sold it after about a month and never saw it again.

The Crown has called no evidence from Merwan Salameh regarding his act of transferring registration of the vehicle in January 2022. The inference can easily be drawn that both the accused and his brother Merwan Salameh undertook work for or assisted informally with their father and uncle’s business Bankstown Auto, which was no doubt involved in numerous sales. The evidence of Ms Altai supports the younger Merwan Salameh actively working for Bankstown Auto.

The presence of the accused at the business address of Bankstown Auto when police attended there on 2 March 2023, the repeated description in the evidence and submissions of Bankstown Auto as the Salameh family business, the fact that the accused still lived at home with his father in January 2022, his alleged presence at the business premises by reference to phone records summarised in exhibit 6, and the close association between his own business LMV Enterprises and Bankstown Auto, comfortably supports the proposition that the accused may well have also provided assistance to his father and uncle’s business. The prospect of both young men being provided information by either Khaled Salameh, the older Merwan Salameh, or another employee of the company, to fulfill sales of cars, was obvious. Such acts would have been unmemorable. There is no evidence from the accused’s uncle Merwan Salameh as to his apparent funding of the compulsory third party insurance at this time.

All the evidence indicates is that someone gave the accused a photograph of Mr Sassin’s licence as showing the appropriate identification to be used for documenting the sale of the car, and there is no direct evidence as to who it was who did so. Although I do not make an express finding as such, the evidence suggests the prospect that it was Khaled Salameh. The police put to Khaled Salameh, the man who had bought the car and was understood by some to effectively be the boss of Bankstown Auto, that they believed he had helped Merwan sell the Hyundai. He did not disagree with this proposition, and stated that he knew all about the vehicle and its sale, and everybody concerned with this, and no evidence was called from him by the Crown.

There is no evidentiary basis for attributing any fraudulent intention in the accused forwarding the photograph of Mr Sassin’s licence to his brother, or his brother providing it to the registering authorities. There is no evidence of the accused having anything to do with the Hyundai other than this exchange for a few minutes with his brother in January 2022.

Accepting Detective Mangan’s evidence that he can see in the photographs of the four men in Roastville Café on the morning of 11 May 2022 that one of them had a tattoo on his hand similar to that of the accused (which I cannot see myself, but in these adversarial proceedings seems not to have been disputed on behalf of the accused), his having coffee with the three named men is unremarkable. He was wearing a Sydney Prestige hooded top when he was arrested. In some capacity that was not made clear by the evidence he has business dealings with those who operate Sydney Prestige. That two of his company’s vehicles were in the Sydney Prestige workshop on 11 May 2022 could indicate that he uses Sydney Prestige to repair or otherwise service his vehicles; or it could indicate that he uses the space at Sydney Prestige in some capacity to rent out some of LMV Enterprises’ vehicles, as indicated by the agreed facts in Mr Lambroglou’s sentence proceedings, despite the business address of LMV Enterprises being in Riverwood.

The accused clearly knows Mr Nehme and Mr Kotsis, as indicated in the telecommunications evidence. Him meeting them at the coffee shop on 11 May 2022 is not important. The Hyundai was first seen in the vicinity of Sydney Prestige on 11 May 2022 after the accused had left there, assuming he was there, and before he came back, if he came back. There is thus no evidence to suggest he brought the Hyundai to the vicinity of Sydney Prestige on 11 May 2022.

The Crown has not produced any evidence of the business records of Sydney Prestige, nor adduced any evidence from either its operators, Tony Nehme and George Kotsis, nor any other owner or employee of the business. There is thus no evidence as to whether or not the vehicle was being worked on at Sydney Prestige on 11 or 12 May 2022, nor whether any owner, operator or employee of the business had any knowledge of the vehicle being present in the driveway of the premises, the reason therefor, or whether any such person made the vehicle available for Mr Lambroglou, if it was not already in Mr Lambroglou’s possession before it was brought there.

The inference may be drawn that someone who acquired or otherwise had possession of the Hyundai from January 2022 knew that it could not be traced back to a legitimate owner, as they knew that Frank Sassin had not really purchased the vehicle. That is, the evidence supports the inference being drawn that at least one person knew that the registration of the Hyundai in Mr Sassin’s name was fraudulent. For the reasons outlined above, it is not proved that the accused had that knowledge. On the Crown theory that the murder of Mr Iskander was in retribution for the shooting of the Zahed brothers, use of the Hyundai as a getaway car in the murder of Mr Iskander was clearly not in the mind of whomever had the fraudulent knowledge in connection with the registration of the car in January 2022. There is no reason whatsoever to infer that the accused, a legitimate car dealer with no prior convictions, decided to keep a car around up his sleeve which could be used and not traced to a legitimate owner, in case it was needed in a crime in the future. The inference may be drawn that organised criminals could do such a thing, and there is evidence before the Court that criminal acts are committed by people using cars registered falsely in the names of uninvolved real people with no criminal convictions.

There is no evidence as to the whereabouts of the Hyundai between late January and 11 May 2022. If the accused was present in the vicinity of Sydney Prestige on 11 May 2022 as alleged by the Crown, the evidence supports the proposition that the car was not brought to that vicinity whilst he was there.

The Crown has adduced no evidence from Mr Lambroglou as to who it was who came to his own vehicle at 3:30 pm on 11 May 2022 nor what was done or discussed on that occasion. The Crown has adduced no evidence from any owner, operator or employee of Sydney Prestige excluding them from being the person who seemingly attended upon Mr Lambroglou in the area of the front seats of his iLoad van. The quality of the images of the person who attended upon Mr Lambroglou allows no distinction to be drawn between the accused and hundreds of thousands, if not more, of others present in Sydney that day.

Even if this was the accused, there is no evidence as to what he was doing. There was no evidence adduced from Mr Lambroglou as to whether he knows the accused, or had any reason to converse with him in May 2022.

There is no evidence from Mr Lambroglou that he was not regularly in possession of the Hyundai in early 2022, nor when he obtained the key to the vehicle, or from whom. There is no evidence as to whether he engaged with anybody when he collected the vehicle shortly after 8:30 pm on 12 May 2022, if so whom, nor where precisely the vehicle was parked at that time.

I am accordingly not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused provided the vehicle to Mr Lambroglou or anyone on 12 May 2022.

I noted earlier that the Crown did not articulate, but nor expressly abandon, the contention in the coincidence notice that the provision of the Forester by the accused could support a finding that he provided the Hyundai. The apparent provision by the accused of the Forester in April 2022 to people who used it in the murder of Mr Ahmad does not logically bear upon the absence of evidence to support this crucial element of the Crown case. The accused is a car dealer, and someone (knowingly or not) connected with the murder of Mr Ahmad seems to have bought a car from him in that capacity, seeking his arrangement of window tinting. That person seems to have fraudulently wished for the purchase to be registered in the name Abdul-Rahman Eid, consistent with that organising person having some criminal connection with Mr Ahmad’s murder. Unlike the Hyundai, the transfer of registration was proximate to the murder. The evidence does not suggest any basis for inferring the car dealer was informed of any criminality, far less the detail of it.

There is no logical process of reasoning flowing from the evidence concerning the Forester, to determine that the accused in fact supplied the Hyundai, in light of the major problems with the Crown case on this element as explained above.

Were I satisfied that the accused provided the Hyundai to Mr Lambroglou, I would not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in doing so he had any knowledge that the car was going to be used in connection with murdering the deceased, or anybody. His job is in supplying vehicles. Whoever it was who was responsible for organising the murder of Mr Iskander determined to have a third getaway car. As is currently commonly the case in organised crime related shootings, this was a car of low value linked fraudulently to a person completely uninvolved, with no criminal history.

Contrary to the Crown submission, there is no evidence before the Court supporting the proposition that the car was provided to members of the Comanchero. The agreed facts in relation to Mr Lambroglou include his admission that he was participating in a criminal group; namely an outlaw motorcycle gang, knowing that it was a criminal group. There is no indication what it was. The expert report directed specifically in part to membership or affiliation or connection with the Comanchero does not contend Mr Lambroglou was associated with the Comanchero in any way. There is no material before me to indicate which, if any, criminal group was involved in the killing of Mr Iskander. The killing certainly had the hallmarks of organised crime, but that is all that can be said.

There is no evidence before the Court to support the Crown submission that the murder of Mr Iskander was done in retaliation for the shooting of the Zahed brothers. A folder of statements relevant to his murder was tendered, and there is nothing in it about Mr Iskander or the investigation into his murder which sheds any light on who was involved in killing him.

There is however other evidence before the Court which indicates Mr Iskander was a relative of Mr Ahmad, and affiliated with the Ahmad organised crime network. The evidence went no further than this – for example as to the strength of their bond as relatives, perception of their bond by others, or the degree of Mr Iskander’s affiliation with the Ahmad organised crime network. Nonetheless, that is all there is before the Court suggesting a possible motive for the murder of Mr Iskander.

The evidence before the Court demonstrates serious, complex, inter-gang violence between the Ahmad organised crime group and Hamzy and Alameddine organised crime groups, with known threats from multiple sources to kill Mr Ahmad, proximate to the death of Mr Iskander. The expert witness Detective Groenewegen, describing the existence of conflict between these organised crime networks between 27 April and 14 May 2022, and ongoing, stated that the nature and distinguishing characteristics of these conflicts fell outside his area of expertise. Detective Flanagan’s statement described the ongoing conflict between the Ahmad and Alameddine crime networks. This was, in general terms, based on disputes over illegal drug distribution, family grievances, historical murders and serious assaults, repeated kidnapping for ransom offences and so on. Unnamed organised criminal groups had offered sums of between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000 to murder Mr Ahmad, on the information available to police, in the lead up to his murder. In light of these complex animosities between groups of organised criminals, there is no basis to think, far less be satisfied to any degree, that the Comanchero was involved in the murder of Mr Iskander, nor, to the extent it is relevant, Mr Ahmad.

The high point of the Crown contention that Mr Iskander was killed in retaliation for the shooting of the Zahed brothers is the distraught threat of the wife of Tarek Zahed outside the hospital on the afternoon of 12 May 2022, to the effect that someone was going to get shot, that whoever had shot her brother and husband had someone coming, that it was all going to occur very soon, and that “we’re onto a war”. I take it that the inference submitted to be supported by this evidence, in light of the murder of Mr Iskander two days later, was that there was in existence on 12 May 2022 a plan to kill Mr Iskander, that Tarek Zahed’s wife had direct knowledge of, Mr Iskander being known (or believed) to be the person who had shot her brother-in-law and husband.

Such a proposed process of reasoning falls down in so many ways. Tarek Zahed’s wife was not called as a witness, and no statement from her was adduced. There is thus no evidence to support the suggestion that she really did have direct knowledge that there was already in existence a plan at that point to shoot the person believed to have shot the Zahed brothers, instead of the more reasonable and obvious proposition that she was making empty threats in ventilating her anger at police.

There is no evidence that she or anybody else believed Mr Iskander was responsible for shooting the Zahed brothers, or had any reason to think that. Further, it is implausible that she would have any influence over or inside knowledge of any planned retribution if it was emanating from the Comanchero, a male only, deeply hierarchical organisation.

There is no evidence to support the submission also advanced that the shooting of the Zahed brothers was an act of retaliation for the murder of Mr Ahmad. I have discussed already the absence of evidence that the Comanchero had anything to do with the murder of Mr Ahmad, and the multiple other organised criminal networks who were seemingly motivated to murder him. The only evidence before the Court that could bear upon the issue of why the Zahed brothers were shot was Detective Groenewegen’s evidence that senior members of the Comanchero had been the subject of violent incidents over the two years preceding his statement, consistent with those senior members being involved in conflicts with criminals (with insufficient admissible information available to him to make any further opinion about the nature and scope of those conflicts). The Crown has not adduced any evidence of Tarek Zahed’s particular conflicts with criminals that enable any view at all to be expressed about a possible motivation for shooting him. Further, in circumstances where nothing has been adduced about Omar Zahed other than not being a member of the Comanchero, there is no way to reason that Tarek Zahed was the target of the shooting as distinct from Omar Zahed.

Further, at the time Tarek Zahed’s wife spoke, it seems likely Tarek Zahed was still in a coma, or not long out of it. He, as Sergeant at Arms (the one who co-ordinates retaliatory acts), could not have organised any retaliatory shooting. Further, even if there was to be retaliation for the shooting of the Zahed brothers, Tarek Zahed had an association with the Alameddine organised crime network or members of it as well. Members of that organised crime network would also have been motivated to avenge his shooting (and additionally had the direct motive already outlined of conflict with the Ahmad organised crime network). With no evidence from Tarek Zahed’s wife, there is no evidence as to the people she allegedly had direct knowledge of forming a plan to shoot in retaliation, in the highly unlikely event she was speaking about a real plan.

Even if the Comanchero was involved in the murder of Mr Iskander, there is no evidence supporting the accused’s knowledge of this. There is no evidence before the Court as to by whom, or in what terms, the accused was asked to provide a vehicle. The only person who the Crown endeavoured to prove the accused had contact with in connection with the provision of the Hyundai, Mr Lambroglou, was not called as a witness and there is no account from him before the Court as to the terms of any conversation with the accused.

If, contrary to my earlier findings, the accused did in May 2022 have access to the Hyundai and was conscious that it could not be traced to its real owner or user, the evidence is still silent as to how or why he came to allow Mr Lambroglou to have that vehicle. There is no evidence whatsoever of how the accused came to be asked to provide such a vehicle. Although the agreed facts in Mr Lambroglou’s sentence proceedings indicate that he agreed he was participating in a criminal group by doing what he did on 12 May 2022, there is no evidence as to what the group was, nor who else he engaged with. Although the Crown tendered a large bundle of documents constituting a Forensic Analysis Report of the accused’s phone (exhibit 3), there was no submission based on any aspect of this, and I was not taken to any entries in it suggesting contact between Mr Lambroglou and the accused.

There is insufficient evidence to infer that even if the accused was asked, directly or indirectly, to provide a vehicle which could not be traced, he knew this was in connection with a plan to kill, as distinct from a plan to commit any other type of crime for which criminals seek out cars with irregular registration. Suspicion of the existence of the facts does not of itself amount to knowledge of the facts.

The evidence relied upon by the Crown to demonstrate the accused’s state of mind does not need to be turned to. Had the evidence proved (additionally to his provision of the car) that the murder was done in retaliation for the shooting of the Zahed brothers, and that the accused came to provide the Hyundai because he was asked by Tarek Zahed (or some close aid of his) to provide a vehicle that could not be traced, then the media reporting and communications relied upon could logically have a bearing on the state of mind of the accused. The Crown could then at least submit that, as a matter of logic, the accused would have been suspicious upon a request of that nature, from that person, a few days after the shooting of the Zahed brothers, that the vehicle was to be used in some form of retaliation.

Even on that basis, the media reporting the Crown relied upon suggested to a person reading it that it would be a long time before anything could be determined as to who was responsible for shooting the Zahed brothers, because there were so many contenders.

More importantly however, there are so many steps missing before such process of reasoning could even begin to be employed, as explained above.

The Crown has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I find the accused, Mr Salameh, not guilty of the murder of Mr Iskander.