Son of slain crime boss found guilty of murder following shooting
He said his father contacted him that morning and asked him and Fares to take some “hots” (stolen cars) to the nightclub and fire the warning shots.
“He wanted me to go and fire warning shots in front of the Love Mac,” Elliott said on the witness stand three weeks ago.
Elliott said his father was violent, unpredictable and quick to anger, and that he did as ordered lest Maghnie hit him if he disobeyed.
Maghnie, 44, was shot dead during an argument in Epping less than nine months after the Love Machine shooting. No one has been charged for his death.
Prosecutor Patrick Bourke, QC, told the jury this month that minutes after Maghnie contacted Elliott on an encrypted app, the son and Fares left their homes in the northern suburbs and drove to Wollert to collect the Porsche.
Maghnie gave the gun to Elliott about a month earlier, according to the lawsuit, and Fares had kept it for his friend.
Both young men walked past Love Machine four times before the fifth critical pass, Bourke said, as Elliott was close enough to hit people but did not fire over their heads.
“He intended to kill people, he didn’t care,” Bourke told the jury in a closing speech.
“It was a reward for the club for the treatment of Ali Maghnie. That’s why it happened at the club, aiming for safety and everyone who was there in front.
“A public statement [that] This will not be tolerated. He does not need to have a specific, logical target when firing his weapon. You can shoot a group of people, complete strangers for no reason [and have] no motivation, [and] in our opinion, when you do this, your intention is clear.
“It’s to kill them, to kill people.”
Elliott testified and said he felt he had no choice but to follow Maghnie’s orders.
He said he had used drugs in the days leading up to the shooting and that when he told Maghnie he was not comfortable shooting a gun outside the nightclub, her father was dismissive and told her to “shut the f— up”.
Elliott said he had never fired a gun before and thought he had shot in the air. It was only a few hours later that he learned that people had been injured. “It was an unpleasant feeling,” he said in testimony.
“I made a mistake, you know, like I was just human and I did a stupid thing… I would do anything to go back and change it,” he said. he declares.
Elliott’s lawyer, Julie Condon, QC, said Maghnie was not the type to disobey and urged the jury to find her client on lesser charges of manslaughter, not murder.
Bourke maintained that Fares was a “willing and contributing participant in the exercise” as the friends stole cars and torched the Porsche together.
Prosecutors argued that Hamka set fire to a Suzuki Swift after the shooting believing it was connected to the crime and also picked up the handgun from a park and hid it in his bedroom in exchange for $3,000. .
Hamka told police he recovered the gun after receiving a message on an encrypted app, but said he was unaware it had been used in the shooting.
His attorney, David Cronin, argued that Hamka’s DNA was on a gas can, prosecutors had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he destroyed the Suzuki.
The jury found Hamka guilty of the charge relating to the concealment of the weapon, but acquitted him of the charge relating to the Suzuki.
Campbell Thomson, for Fares, argued that the evidence showed his client believed Elliott would fire warning shots and never intended anyone to be hurt.
Judge Andrew Tinney remanded the trio into custody for a pre-sentence hearing in August. The men waved at supporters as they were taken into custody.
Our latest news alert will be notify you important breaking news as it happens. Get it here.