Ali Chaouk maintains he was having dinner along with his spouse and her mom when household rival Mohammad Haddara was gunned down 13 years in the past.
He claims jurors have been wrongly instructed his spouse and mother-in-law had lied about his alibi earlier than deciding his responsible verdict in 2018, the Court docket of Attraction heard on Friday.
A decade after the homicide, Chaouk was jailed for twenty-four years after his spouse’s cousin, Ahmed Hablas, gave proof in opposition to him on the trial.
He should serve 18 years earlier than he turns into eligible for parole.
The Chaouk and the Haddara households have a prolonged historical past of animosity and the capturing occurred after an argument a couple of borrowed Mercedes.
Hablas initially confessed to the killing however recanted earlier than standing trial, saying he had confessed out of concern.
He was acquitted by a jury in 2011.
Chaouk, who appeared in courtroom by video hyperlink from Barwon jail, has all the time maintained his innocence.
His barrister Peter Lange argued Chaouk’s conviction needs to be overturned as a consequence of “particular and compelling circumstances” relating to using his spouse and mother-in-law’s alibi proof throughout the trial.
“It was advised within the closing handle by prosecution counsel that each of those women had lied,” Lange instructed the courtroom on Friday.
“The jury needed to contemplate, as a way to convict the applicant (Chaouk), the proof of each the accomplice and the mother-in-law.
“As a result of if that proof raised doubt, the prosecution’s case failed.
“There was a really actual threat of misuse of the rejection of the alibi proof, in order to present rise to particular circumstances.”
Lange mentioned the ladies’s alibi was in line with what his shopper had instructed police when he was interviewed.
He alleged the jury was not correctly directed by the trial decide about learn how to cope with the case in the event that they concluded Chaouk, his accomplice and her mom had lied concerning the alibi.
Additional, he argued if the jury had discovered that they had lied then jurors would been extra prone to settle for Hablas’ account on the trial.
“In different phrases, a bent to trigger individuals to lie on his behalf to keep away from a discovering of involvement within the capturing and subsequently giving credence to the account given by Hablas,” Lange mentioned.
“That might be a wholly inappropriate mode of reasoning.”
Crown barrister Chris Boyce mentioned the trial decide’s instructions to the jury have been rigorously curated and that Chaouk’s legal professionals didn’t ask for the course concerning the alibi proof.
Had the jury been given this course, Boyce mentioned it could not have helped Chaouk’s case.
Justices Geoffrey Priest, David Seashore and Stephen McLeish reserved their resolution.
