Mahmoud Ahmad: Brother of slain kingpin’s manslaughter sentence cut by a year

A man who fled Australia after firing a ‘warning shot’ during a gunfight that killed a notorious crime figure has had time shaved off his sentence.

A man who fled to Lebanon after the western Sydney gunfight that killed underworld figure Safwan Charbaji has had his manslaughter sentence cut by a year due to the help he offered authorities.

Mahmoud “Brownie” Ahmad, brother of slain crime kingpin Walid “Wally” Ahmad, was arrested in dramatic scenes at Sydney Airport on his return to Australia in March 2017.

He had left the country fearing for his life after being involved in a brawl that rapidly turned into a shootout at Condell Park in April 2016.

The 38-year-old was initially charged with murder, but prosecutors eventually conceded his brother, Walid, had fired the shot that killed Charbaji as the gunfight unfolded in broad daylight.

Walid was himself gunned down three weeks later.

Ahmad eventually pleaded guilty to manslaughter, admitting he had fired a “warning shot” before fleeing the scene of the gun battle in a white Toyota HiLux.

Ahmad fled Australia after the gunfight and was arrested in dramatic scenes at Sydney Airport in 2017.

Ahmad was sentenced to seven years prison with a non-parole period of five years and three months in 2020.

But he launched an appeal, arguing the sentence was too harsh and did not take into account the help he had given authorities — in particular, that he admitted he had fired a shot, which was not captured on CCTV.

His barrister David Dalton SC argued last month the crown case was initially “totally misconceived” and wrongly placed Ahmad as the one who fired the fatal shot.

Ahmad could have argued self-defence to manslaughter yet had elected to plead guilty in the face of an extremely weak case, Mr Dalton said.

In a judgment handed down on Friday, the Court of Appeal shaved a year off Ahmad’s sentence, altering it to six years prison with a non-parole period of four years and six months.

Justices Mark Leeming, Ian Harrison and Christine Adamson ruled there was a “vacuum” of evidence about precisely how helpful Ahmad’s information had been.

There was nothing to indicate what the crown could have proved in the absence of Ahmad’s admissions, they wrote.

But the judges accepted the case against Ahmad had been weak — prosecutors themselves described it as “not a particularly strong one” to the sentencing judge — and that the Crown would have had problems dealing with an argument of self-defence.

“It follows that the assistance provided by (Ahmad) was not so negligible as to be disregarded,” they wrote.

Ahmad will now be eligible for parole in September.