Underbelly 11 Read online

  The driver in the Jason Moran murder and the shooter in the Jason Moran murder were ultimately recruited by you to carryout the murder together.

  I heard you give evidence in chief and be cross-examined over a period of some hours. I find that the evidence that you gave, in the main was unbelievable, even incredible at times. It was, in my view, designed to ensure that it would provide no evidence against any person other than those who are already dead, convicted or have pleaded guilty to various offences. You denied any involvement or knowledge of involvement of Mokbel in the murder of Lewis Moran or Michael Marshall.

  Not only do I consider you a most unsatisfactory witness, virtually incapable of telling the truth, except for some minor and largely irrelevant portions of your evidence, I find that the manner in which you gave evidence was arrogant, almost supercilious and you left with me with a strong impression that your view of all of these murders was that they were all really justifiable and you were the real victim, having been “forced” to admit at least some of your involvement, by the statements of other members of your group who had co-operated with police.

  You do not get to be judge, jury and executioner. These were not vigilante killings, they were matters of expediency to you, these people were either in your way as competitors, or persons that you believed may be vengeful towards you because of other activities you had undertaken, or because of some animosity that you bore towards them.

  Your reasons for killing were not justifiable; you acted as though it was your right to have these people killed. That theme constantly came through in the evidence you gave before me.

  In terms of the chain of command I find that you were at the top of the chain of command of that gang, and that is entirely consistent with you giving the orders for these people to be killed, whilst not taking an active part in the physical execution of these people. As the counsellor and procurer you were indeed the puppet master deciding and controlling whether people lived or died.

  I sentenced you on July 19, 2006, for the murder of Michael Marshall, after a plea of not guilty and conviction by a jury, to a period of 26 years imprisonment; one year of the sentence you were then serving was made cumulative. Making a total effect of sentence of 27 years, with a non-parole period of 21 years.

  Your crimes occurred as I said during a time of what has been referred to as the “gangland” or “under world” killings. All of those murders, whether charged or uncharged, carry similar hallmarks to these murders. They are invariably executions; a firearm is usually used; they are often in public places such as streets, hotels or places where ordinary citizens would be going about their normal business. Those murders invariably have significant connections with crime or gang-related activity and whilst no ordinary member of the public has been killed or harmed during these killings, those killings have clearly’ engendered a level of fear within our community as to potential harm of innocent persons, and equally, a concern relating to the degree of lawlessness into which Victoria, as a community, has been plunged. You were responsible to a very large degree for that fear.

  There has been intense media coverage of these murders in Melbourne, and whilst you were considered a suspect by many, including the police, the evidence of your involvement was notable to be found, due to the fact that you distanced your self from these crimes by using others to do the killings and arranging alibis. It was not until the criminal code of silence was broken that those who knew about your involvement began to talk to the police. The sentences imposed on those persons reflect the significant discounts that were given to them for the risks they took by making statements about your involvement.

  Whilst you were a suspect and being referred to in the media it was apparent that you were enjoying the game of “being famous”. You gave interviews outside court, and appeared prepared to give your views of a variety of matters, and unfortunately the media to a degree pandered to that.

  I have a concern that some younger members of the community who are involved in petty crime may be looking to you as some sort of hero. You are not, you are a killer, and a cowardly one who employed others to do the actual killing, whilst you hid behind carefully constructed alibis. You should not be the subject of admiration by any member of our community. You have robbed families of people they love, of sons, brothers and fathers.

  I just want to make it clear to all who may look at this sentence that you are not someone to be admired in any way.

  I have taken into account the suffering that the families of these victims have endured, as well as the suffering of other innocent people such as Ms Sugars and the owners of the Brunswick Club, also the parents and children attending Auskick, but acknowledge that whatever sentence is imposed, they will probably feel aggrieved as nothing will return their loved ones and no sentence imposed will ever feel sufficient to them.

  Your prior convictions are limited in nature and do not relate to any matters of violence. You were convicted in May of 1990 of handling stolen goods, failing to answer bail and possession of stolen property and you were fined a total of $400. In March of 1993 again, at the Magistrates’ Court, a charge of criminal damage and throwing a missile for which you were placed on a non-conviction community-based order with conditions of 150 hours of community work, which you breached, but no further action was taken as the order had expired. Finally, in the County Court in December of 1994, attempting to traffic in a drug of dependence, being amphetamine, for which you were ultimately sentenced by the Court of Appeal to twelve months imprisonment with six months suspended for a period of two years. I place no reliance upon the earlier two matters and I place limited reliance upon the latter matter only as indicating that at that stage an involvement in the criminal milieu in which this offence occurred.

  Your now ex-wife has three children from previous relationships, a son, aged around 18, and two daughters, approximately 13 and 14. Together with your ex-wife, you have a daughter, called Dhakota, who is aged approximately six, having been born on 10 March, 2001.

  Your parents are separated. Your mother has never been in trouble with the law and your father has no convictions. Your father has had significant health problems, particularly in the last few years.

  You were educated to Year 11 at Broadmeadows West Technical School and thereafter it was reported that you had a number of short-term labouring jobs. You had a series of labouring jobs, followed by opening a children’s wear shop with your wife, which became non-profitable and closed … You then were working as a semi-professional gambler from that period until being banned from the casino.

  You were working as a drug trafficker up to and including the time of the murders.

  The circumstances in which you have been held and will in all likelihood continue to be held for a substantial period are of relevance in mitigation of your sentence. You are currently held in the Acacia high security unit at Barwon Prison, which is the maximum security unit of the state penal system. The conditions at Acacia are quite different to those from mainstream prisoners. The visits from family are severely restricted, particularly in terms of contact visits, access out of cells during the day, mixing with other prisoners, and access to phone calls all are severely restricted. This is not what the average sentenced prisoner has to endure by way of conditions of serving a sentence. It is how you have been held, both as a person on remand and as a sentenced prisoner. It is equally evident that this will be the manner of your incarceration for some substantial time.

  There are many reasons why persons are in that unit, and in your case, a major part of it is ensuring your safety. You have been in a gang war with other criminals and the issue of revenge being taken by those other persons is not far-fetched. Equally there are many within the prison system that may have a desire to make a name for themselves by causing you harm. Equally those persons who have elected to give evidence against you must be protected from you.

  You have also made a statement to the police, which I have had the opportunity to read. You offere
d to give evidence in respect of that statement but the prosecutor has informed the Court that since you have given evidence in the manner that you have in this case, they would not consider calling you, as they do not consider you a witness of truth.

  That concurs with my own observations of your evidence. Accordingly, whilst there is some benefit to you by the provision of the statement, it is of little significance when compared to your criminality.

  … You have uttered words of remorse in response to questions asked of you by your counsel but I find that you have no real or genuine remorse for the victims of your crimes, only remorse that you have been caught and lost your liberty.

  However, I do intend to impose a minimum term, but that is on the basis of one significant factor only, which are your pleas of guilty to these offences. Whilst I find that you do not have any genuine remorse for the crimes, I am still obliged to take into account in your favour that you have entered pleas of guilty. It is pragmatic and utilitarian to give you a discount for entering those pleas, for by doing so you have prevented this Court from spending anywhere between five to ten years hearing your trials and the appeals from those trials.

  Equally you have released the police officers involved in this task force to move on to other pressing cases that need investigating, and enabled those in the Office of Public Prosecutions to pursue other prosecutions. The amount of money that has been saved as a result is considerable. That behaviour must be encouraged. It must be made clear to all charged with offences, of whatever type, that if they do enter a plea of guilty to the offences that they will receive a real and significant discount. Without your pleas of guilty I would not have imposed a minimum term for these offences, even allowing for the other mitigating material upon which your counsel relied.

  Accordingly, I sentence you as follows: on count one, the murder of Jason Moran, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for life count two, the murder of Mark Mallia, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for life count two, the murder of Lewis Moran, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for 25 years.

  Count Four, the conspiracy to murder Mario Condello, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for 25 years.

  I further direct that you serve a minimum term of 35 years’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole. The sentence will commence from this day.

  I have already taken into account the fact that you have been in custody since 2004 when determining the appropriate minimum and the sentence and I intend that the new minimum term that I have imposed commences from today. To make it absolutely clear: what I intend is that you are to serve 35 years’ imprisonment from today before you could be considered eligible for parole.