Rafat Alameddine a ‘sitting duck’ for revenge attack, court told

Loading

The serious crime prevention orders – intended to curb the escalating tensions – restrict the activities and communications of Rafat Alameddine, Masood Zakaria, Ghassan Amoun and Ibrahim Hamzy.

In separate proceedings over his bail conditions, Alameddine, 29, sought to change a night-time curfew requirement keeping him at a nominated address between 10pm and 6am.

Alameddine’s lawyer, Abdul Saddik, told the Herald the application for a bail variation was mainly for his client to have more “freedom and flexibility” after hours.

Mr Saddik said his client enjoyed fishing at night and had not been able to do that as much recently.

His barrister, Tom Hughes, also told the court there was a “sitting duck problem that attaches to a night-time curfew in the context of this dispute”.

Mr Hughes pointed to Supreme Court Justice Peter Garling’s finding in the Hamzy serious crime prevention order proceedings that a legal requirement for the people involved to be at a certain location at a certain time would be undesirable in the context of retaliatory violence.

“If such a condition was to become known to those who wish them harm, the orders would have the potential to escalate the violence rather than diffuse it by publicly identifying where a possible target is to be found in a known time period,” Justice Garling said.

Alameddine moved to a new address following the October shooting at his home – during which he was present – and subsequently applied to remove the curfew requirement keeping him at his residence between certain hours.

Loading

On Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Robertson Wright agreed to remove the bail condition requiring a specific address to be nominated but maintained the night-time curfew. Alameddine will have to keep police informed of any moves to a new address.

While Mr Hughes expressed concern about the “inflexibility” of the conditions still requiring him to be at home for eight hours overnight, Justice Wright said the ability to change residences addressed Alameddine’s vulnerability to attack.

The Crown solicitor said the real risk for Alameddine was not a curfew but rivals knowing his exact whereabouts, noting “these sorts of attacks can happen at any time, any place”.

Alameddine was told he would be able to collect his wife and daughter and move locations suddenly in the event of a “threat” occurring, as long as police were informed within 12 hours.

Justice Wright agreed that the bail conditions on Alameddine’s living arrangements should be consistent with the conditions of the serious crime prevention orders.

In addition to residence requirements, the serious crime prevention orders on Alameddine prevented him from using phones not authorised by police and encrypted communications, possessing more than $10,000 in cash and interacting with various known associates and rivals.

In the proceedings, police had alleged the dispute stemmed from the suspected theft of drugs that spiralled into an assault and shootings.