Mahmoud Karam death: Identities of alleged killers suppressed amid revenge concern
The identities of two men accused of murdering an underworld figure who shot back have been suppressed for this reason.
The names of two men police allege gunned down a Melbourne underworld figure have been temporarily suppressed by a magistrate after their families were told of revenge concerns.
The pair, aged 20 and 22, were both charged with murder last month over their alleged involvement in a shootout with Mahmoud Karam, 60, last year.
According to Victoria Police, Mr Karam died in hospital after he was shot about 10pm on December 20 outside a suburban property in Campbellfield.
The two men came to the attention of police after being dropped off at a hospital with serious injuries, it’s alleged.
They appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on Monday as lawyers sought a suppression order prohibiting their names from being published in connection with the case.
The court was told the homicide squad detective that charged the two young men had informed their families there was a general risk of reprisals against the men, their families and associates based on Mr Karam’s alleged ties with organised crime.
“If their identities are released they could be at risk,” defence lawyer Markorius Habib said.
Another lawyer acting for one of the men, Stephanie Wallace, said previous media coverage of Mr Karam’s death had suggested it could be a contract hit or retaliatory killing, while “at this stage” police had not alleged a gangland motive.
The court was told a brief summary of the police case alleged a shootout, with Mr Karam firing at the two men and them responding in kind.
The suppression order application was challenged by media lawyer Sam White, representing The Age newspaper, who argued there was insufficient evidence to displace the principle of open justice.
Open justice holds that court proceedings should be held in public unless exceptional circumstances are met.
“I’ve not been provided with any evidence other than the bare assertion there may be a risk to safety,” Mr White said.
“Put in such general terms, it doesn’t arise beyond a submission that could be made in a vast number of cases that involve organised crime.”
Ultimately, magistrate Andrew Waters ruled that he was not satisfied there were sufficient grounds to displace the principle of open justice and make a full suppression order.
But he said he was prepared to adjourn the hearing for three months and extend temporary suppression orders until the next court date.
Mr Waters noted that while there was no indication of any particular threat towards the two men or their families, more details could come when police hand over their case in late April.
“I should not simply kick the can down the road,” he said.
“I am very concerned this matter not be adjourned and adjourned … I expect and hope the parties be in a position to deal with this matter on that date.”
The two men will return to court in May.