Suspected drug theft triggered escalating gangland violence

Loading

The orders would impose stringent conditions, including whom the men can speak to, where they can go and their phone use. They must also divulge details of their vehicles, bank accounts and online accounts.

In a hearing on Tuesday, NSW Police attempted to demonstrate that the orders were needed to restrict the activities of the men and reduce the risk to crime figures and members of the public.

Barrister Lachlan Gyles, SC, representing NSW Police, linked the violence to an escalating dispute over drugs.

He said the police were targeting men who “have their own interests in retribution” because they have been targeted or had a family member slain during the dispute.

Ibrahim Hamzy was identified by police as one of three assailants who attacked Alameddine associate Zreika on October 14 in Sefton.

One investigator told the court he had “confidently” identified Hamzy as one of the assailants and believed the other two were also family members.

The attack – captured in video footage that was shown to the court – was suspected to be related to the theft of drugs, the court heard.

Detective Chief Inspector Nicholas Read said police had information the “Alameddines had stolen an amount of drugs” from the Hamzy network.

On October 17, three days after the assault, gunshots were fired into the Auburn home of Ibrahim Hamzy in what police believe was a revenge attack for the assault.

On October 19, at 12.35am, the house of prominent Alameddine family member Rafat was sprayed with 15 bullets.

Hours later, Mejid Hamzy was shot dead outside his home in Condell Park, confronted by two black-clad attackers.

The targeted shooting triggered fears the cycle of retribution could erupt into further death and violence, prompting police to seek the serious crime prevention orders.

Amoun’s lawyer, Ahmed Dib, told the Herald his client had not been convicted of an offence since 2008 and there was no evidence of any ongoing involvement in criminal behaviour.

“He is married, he has moved on with his life,” Dib said. “He is someone who has complied with laws since being released from custody.”

Mr Gyles told the court on Tuesday that the Hamzy family, led by Bassam, had been demonstrated in previous criminal trials to seek “revenge for any slight, real or perceived” and the revenge was exacted “inevitably by acts of extreme violence”.

Police argued that the Hamzys had the weapons and resources to carry out violent retribution and suggested that family members were responsive to directives from Bassam despite the fact he is in prison.

Gyles said Hassam’s “intimidating and powerful nature” was reflected in prior conduct and his relatives “felt as though they couldn’t say no to their brother”.