Corrupt Kings Cross Coppers???

George Alexandroaia and Robert Rowe stood trial together, both charged with murder and kidnapping. The victims were Ronald Middleton and Sharon Martin, who were a defacto couple. Ronald was said to be a drug dealer in the Kings Cross area, and Sharon was a prostitute who was addicted to heroin.

The Crown case was that in June 1993 the two men abducted Sharon and detained her against her will. The following day they shot Ronald, then returned to where Sharon was being held and boasted of what they had done. She was eventually released about a week later, and went straight to the police. She was interviewed by Detective Inspector Davidson, and shortly after the police arrested Rowe and Alexandroaia. Rowe's house was searched, and Detective Constable McGrath found four photographs of an Uzi machine gun inside a filing cabinet.

The following day, Rowe made a call from custody, asking a couple that he knew, the Gusics, to destroy some items he had left with them for safekeeping. This included the Uzi and some other photographs of it. Before they managed to do this, police intervened. Ballistics testing conducted on the Uzi showed it was the weapon that had been used to kill Ronald Middleton.

At Alexandroaia and Rowe's trial, they denied any involvement in either Sharon Martin's kidnapping, or the murder of Ronald Middleton. The defence questioned the way Sharon's statement to D.I. Davidson was taken, and argued that it was unreliable. They also questioned the reliability of D.C. McGrath's evidence about finding the photos of the Uzi at Rowe's house. The two accused men stated that someone else killed Ronald, most likely someone in the Kings Cross drug scene, and that they had been set up to look like the killers.

The Crown case was that not only had Alexandroaia and Rowe killed Middleton, but they were also planning to kill Alex Mattar, another drug dealer who was know to provide Sharon with her heroin.

After two months, the jury were unable to reach a verdict and were discharged. Another trial was set.

In the intervening period Sharon Martin was found dead of a suspected drug overdose. D.C. McGrath, who found the Uzi photos in Rowe's house, fell to his death from the seventh floor of an inner city apartment block, apparently committing suicide.

At this time, the Wood Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service was taking place, hearing evidence of police corruption involving the Kings Cross drug scene. A witness known only as 'KX11' gave evidence that Alex Mattar had been involved in a 'marketing dispute' about the 'right' to sell drugs at the Budget Hotel, and that he had the support of the Kings Cross Police. Needless to say, both D.I Davidson and D.C. McGrath were members of the Kings Cross Police. D.I. Davidson had been responsible for investigating the allegations about Mattar - unsurprisingly without a result.

Thus at the second trial of Alexandroaia and Rowe, the defence put forward the theory that Alex Mattar had in fact arranged the death of Ronald Middleton, and that Sharon Martin had also been involved. The theory was that police officers had helped Mattar to set up Alexandroaia and Rowe for Middleton's murder. Alexandroaia in particular was chosen because he used to pick up Sharon Martin as a prostitute regularly, and he and Rowe had been associates for some time.

According to this theory, it followed that Sharon Martin had been murdered with a 'hot shot' (forced to shoot up a lethal dose of heroin) to prevent her giving evidence which would have been embarrassing to both Alex Mattar and the police. It followed that D.C. McGrath had then committed suicide rather than face another cross-examination regarding his supposedly false evidence about finding the Uzi photos in Rowe's house, and also to avoid being forced to reveal the existence of police involvement in an illegal protection racket.

The defence tried unsuccessfully to adjourn the second trial until after the outcome of the Wood Royal Commission. The defence expected that the Justice Wood's report would show that Alexandroaia and Rowe had been set up by a conspiracy between Sharon Martin, D.I. Davidson, D.C. McGrath, Alex Mattar and others. Alexandroaia was convinced he knew the identity of 'KX11' but this could not be proven, as 'KX11' was being kept under wraps and could not be traced.

Eventually, as it turned out, Alexandroaia and Rowe were acquitted on all charges.

"An Act of Sheer Stupidity"

Vin was already married with children when his parents decided to separate in 1996, but to help them out, he decided to let two of his younger brothers move in with him and his family. He promised his mother he would do his best to be a father to them, particularly the youngest Dan, who was in Year 12 at the time. Dan had been doing pretty well at school but since the break up of his parents he had started to wag school, smoke pot, and indulge in "other undesirable behaviour".

Vin's mother contacted him to say she'd just noticed some gold was missing from her safe. A couple of months later she also noticed some jewellery was missing. She told Vin about it, as only she, Dan, and another brother knew the combination to the safe. Eventually, one night in July at around midnight Vin rang his mother to say he was bringing Dan over so that they could all discuss these missing items. He had been drinking that evening, and had become increasingly angry about the whole situation.

Once they were all together, Vin interrogated his brothers as to whether they had robbed their mother. Both brothers denied any involvement, but given Dan's recent drug use, Vin was sceptical about his answers. After about 15-20 minutes, Vin went back out to his car where he had a Luger pistol. He had a licence for the Luger as he was a member of a shooting club, and he had it in the car because he was intending to take part in a practice shoot. He also grabbed a loaded magazine from the car.

In the argument that followed Vin's return to the house, Dan was shot. The bullet struck Dan on the upper right side of his head and passed through his brain, injuring him fatally. Vin rushed over to Dan and tried to revive him, but it was no use. Vin was charged with his brother's murder.

In his recorded interview, Vin told police "So I just said that if he stole money from Mum then I wouldn't let him off scot free, I will kill him. But that was only what I said to scare him and when I, I shot, I, somehow he jumped sideways and accidentally he was shot... I intended just to scare him like this and accidentally I shot him, so I put the gun down here like this and then I called another younger brother of mine to call the police. So I was just trying to scare him by pointing the gun at him, but somehow it went off. It went off and I hit him... When I shot at him I didn't aim at him, I was shooting on one side of where he was but somehow it hit him."

Vin told police earlier that he wanted to fire a shot away from Dan and had intended to shoot just to the side of him. He said he intended to do that, because Dan had taken no notice of his warnings to behave properly, and he wanted to appear "fair dinkum about what I intended to scare him".

At his trial, Vin told the court "I threatened him but he kept saying he didn't do it and at that stage I thought that there was no bullet in the gun... Never in my mind had I the thought of pulling the trigger but I do not know why the gun was fired." He said that he hadn't shot the gun much and wasn't all that familiar with its workings, and that although he loaded the magazine into the gun that night, he had never cocked it. He said he had used the gun on one occasion, firing about 20-30 rounds. He told police that the bullet automatically became loaded into the gun when the magazine was put it.

He was not cross-examined on this, however inconsistencies in earlier statements he had made to police, and also on a bail application, were shown too him. In the bail application he had lied to the court about where he was currently living, and the fact that he had separated from his wife. He attempted to explain this by stating that he had not wanted to mention his family problems to the court. He also said he was referring to different occasions, so that, although he thought he might shoot the gun, he hadn't actually meant to shoot it at the time it fired.

Vin was originally put on trial for murder, however during the proceedings an adjournment was granted so that further ballistic testing could be carried out on the Luger. This testing showed that it was possible to remove the magazine and replace it without affecting the bullet that was currently in the chamber. It was possible in those circumstances for the weapon to remain cocked, and therefore discharge. Basically, it was possible that a user might take out the magazine, see that it was empty, presume the gun was also empty and not realise there was a cartridge in the chamber. Anyone then pulling the trigger would cause the pistol to fire, even if they have not actually cocked it immediately beforehand.

The Crown then offered a charge of manslaughter, which Vin pleaded guilty to immediately, on the basis that he had committed an 'unlawful and dangerous act'.

The Judge found that Vin's earlier lies to the bail court about his marital status and living arrangements were a serious dent in his credibility. As a result, his Honour chose to reject the account of the shooting that Vin gave at his trial, and instead preferred the version he had given to police at the time. The Judge also rejected the idea that Vin was ignorant of how the pistol worked, as he had stated as trial. His Honour found that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that Vin took out the Luger from the car, loaded the magazine into it, pointed the gun just to the side of Dan and fired one shot, which unexpectedly hit him, killing him. Vin intended to shoot, but not to harm.

However, the Judge also took into account that Vin was a 36 year old man with five children, and had arrived in Australia as one of a group of boat people with two of his brothers. He then worked extremely hard to bring the rest of his family out to Australia to set up and operate a sewing company. He had a relatively minor criminal record of traffic and drink-driving offences, and had never been to jail before. He was clearly remorseful for his actions. The tragedy had arisen out of his attempt to take over his father's role when Dan seemed in need of some supervision, and that he was also trying to look after his mother's interests, although in an entirely inappropriate manner, as it turned out. Vin was attempting to assume a family role that was beyond him, and it seemed there was a minor degree of provocation on Dan's part, although this was in no way an excuse for his actions.

Nonetheless, the offence was still very serious, and his Honour commented that there was no room whatsoever for guns in ordinary social relations in today's society. He concluded that Vin's behaviour was "an act of sheer stupidity".

A Meeting at the Mekong Club

Ngoc Dang was born in 1957 in Saigon, one of a large number of children in a poor family. All the kids went to work from an early age. After the fall of Saigon, he worked on a collective farm for some time, before escaping to a refugee camp in Malaya, and on to Australia. He became a citizen, and was eventually joined here by his family, who lived together in Bossley Park. Dang moved out after his marriage in 1993.

He worked at Streets Icrecream for several years, eventually being retrenched with a large payout in 1997. Following this, he spent most of his time at the Mekong Club in Cabramatta drinking and gambling. On Friday 24 April 1998, he'd been at the Club for a longtime, only leaving briefly to pop home for a meal.

Van Hong also decided to spend his Friday night at the Mekong Club with some friends. He was having a good time, and having a fair bit to drink, particularly as it was a public holiday the next day (Anzac Day). He had already made himself known to security staff at the Club, by wearing a red baseball cap, which they had to ask him to remove on quite a few occasions.

At around 11pm he was sitting with Ngoc Dang and another friend, when they started arguing. Hong ended up punching Dang, who fell backwards and hit his head on the table. Hong then picked Dang up by the hair and pulled him back into his chair. He bought Dang a drink. Things seemed to be OK between the two met.

Hong ended up leaving the Club around 1am with with his friend Tu Phu Le. Le was arguing with Hong, telling him he shouldn't have hit Dang, because Dang was older than Hong. It was a matter of honour and respect. Hong didn't particularly agree with Le's point of view, and they began pushing and shoving each other outside on the footpath of the Club.

Around this time Dang, who had also left the Club, came rushing up to the men holding a pistol. Hong said to him "Fuck your mum. You want to play with me?" Dang raised the pistol and fired four shots, aimed directly at Hong. Three shots hit Hong, two in the head and one in the neck. He died instantly. The fourth shot hit Le in the head, causing what is described as a 'gutter' injury (a long gouge). Le was rushed to hospital and survived.

When the police first arrived there was a lot of confusion, and the people arrested were actually Le's friends who took him to the hospital. As a result, Dang managed to get away. He immediately went down to Melbourne where his sister lived, although she later told police he did not arrive until July. She said he stayed there only briefly, and left his car in her garage.

Based on witness reports police issued a warrant for his arrest. By November Dang found it too hard to hide anymore, and turned himself in with his solicitor at Cabramatta Police station. He did not tell them where the pistol was, and it has never been found. He was charged with the murder of Hong, and the malicious wounding of Le. He eventually pleaded guilty to both charges.

According to Dang he bought the pistol two months before the shooting to protect himself and his family. He claimed they had been threatened, although he did not say by whom. He also said there were drug dealers in the area, and so he felt it was necessary to carry this gun at all times, loaded, including inside the Mekong Club.

Dang's lawyers argued that he regretted the shame he brought to his family, so much so that he has severed all contact with his wife and children. He also felt that he was at risk in jail from friends of Hong's, and requested to be placed in protective custody. Dang told the court that he was not a violent person, but the Judge found this a bit difficult to believe, given that he had taken to arming himself with a loaded weapon at all times, even on social occasions.

Dang's lawyers also arguned that there were a number of mitigating factors in Dang's favour, including the fact that there had some level of provocation by Van Hong on the night, and that the offence was not a premeditated, but rather a hot-blooded response. He had no prior criminal record, had surrendered himself voluntarily (although seven months later) and was facing a particularly harsh sentence if served in protective custody. He was also quite drunk at the time.

Nonetheless the Judge found that the circumstances of the shooting were still extremely serious, particularly his use of a loaded gun in a public place. Further, witnesses described him as only being 'middle drunk', and the Crown urged that this should not be taken into account.

Taking everything into consideration, the Judge sentenced Dang to 16 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 years for the murder of Van Hong. For the malicious wounding of To Phu Le he was sentenced to three years, to be served at the same time.

He will be released on 3 November 2010.

Greek Tragedy - Part II

Stephen Anas was also charged with Toula Soravia's murder, but he left for Greece less than a month after the shooting, before he could be arrested. He joined his ex-wife Laurie Sellis and her family in the city of Ioannina, seven hours north of Athens, and adapted his name to Stavros Anastasiatis. Police issued a warrant for his arrest through Interpol, leading to his apprehension in October 1995. The Australian government then attempted to have Anas extradited to Sydney to face trial, but this failed in 1996, as the Greek government said the Australian-born 33-year-old was now a Greek National. However, in a legal first, the Greek goverment honoured an existing treaty agreement and decided to put him on trial in Greece for his role in the killing, charging him with being the 'moral instigator' of the crime.

Anas was under strict bail conditions to report regularly to Ioanninan police, but in August 2007 he failed to do so, and disappeared to Athens. He was then due to stand trial in October 1999, but he claimed he was ill and needed to have his appendix removed, so the trial did not go ahead. It was next listed for May 2000, butAnas managed to avoid trial for the second time by signing up for Greek national miliarty service and joining the army. Upon discovering the legal situation (thanks to extensive negotiations between Australia's Federal Justice Minister and her Greek equivalent) the Greek army gave him leave to stand trial in June, however that trial collapsed.

The fourth attempt at trial began in January 2001, with Anas maintaining his innocence from the dock. Unfortunately the numerous delays had led to one witness refusing to return to Greece anymore, and the remaining eye-witness, Eugene Benitez, was running out of patience. He said he found the process intimidating: "I'll see how I go with this trial, this is bloody nerve-wracking." Benitez had identified Anas as the driver of the white Toyota.

Widower Louis Soravia, who had been fighting for seven years to see Anas tried for the murder of his wife, was also worried. "Its been sort of frustrating. This is the fourth time and definitely if something goes wrong it is hard to predict if we are going to be here next time or not". Although Louis was not a witness to the robbery and therefore not able to give evidence in Australian courts, he opened the case for the prosecution in Ioannina. When trying to tell the court of his 33-year marriage to Toula, and the devastating effect her death had had on his family, he was told by Judge Spiros Mexas to stick to the facts of the case. The defence, led by Ioannina Deputy Mayor Nicolos Gondos, tried to damage Louis' credibility by accusing him of beginning a relationship with another woman just two months after Toula's death. He also admitted he had received $50,000 from an insurance policy on Toula's life. Louis denied his new relationship (with Nicoletta, a Greek woman he married in 2000 in Sydney) began shortly after his wife's death.

Anas' ex-wife Laurie Sellis also gave evidence, maintaining that Anas was innocent, and that he was at home with her at the time of the shooting. She said they were "childhood sweethearts" who had been together since they were 15. Under cross-examination she was forced to admit that before the offence Anas had threatened to kill her, and that she'd taken out a restraining order against him. She also admitted there were problems in her marraige and that they had separated for a "brief" time. She took the opportunity to attack Louis Soravia, saying he had lied about the amount of insurance he received "First of all I know he is married, and I personally know he did not get $50,000. He got $200,000."

Judge Mexas threw out Ms Sellis's 'new' alibi evidence for her husband, saying "Why has it taken you five years to tell a court about this alibi? You have never mentioned it before." He read from previous court transcripts in which Anas claimed he had been at Instint with Jullio Quinteros at the time. She replied that if she had mentioned it in Austalia, Anas would have been breaking his restraining order. However the Judge said the order was not relevant in Greece and threw out her alibi. He also challenged her about other inconsistencies in her evidence.

Eugene Benitez gave his evidence that he recognised Anas as the driver of the getaway car, however ongoing problems with the translation from Greek to English and back again frustrated Mr Soravia, who kept interrupting loudly. He was repeatedly reprimanded by Judge Mexas for interfering with proceedings, and was eventually thrown out of the court. However the Judge later relented and allowed him back in. Benitez was questioned by Mexas: "How could you have seen the driver, when according to the sketch [of the scene] you have drawn for the court, and taking into account that you drive on the left-hand side in Australia, you could only have seen the passenger?" Benitez maintained he had seen Anas. The Judge also asked "In previous testimony you said that you saw the car for one second, now you claim you saw it for four seconds. Which is correct?" Mr Benitez replied "About four seconds."

In the earlier trials in Australia Mr Benitez had said he was wearing sunglasses when he made the observation, but in Greece he stated that they were not really sunglasses but glasses, and that he had also been wearing contact lenses. These inconsistencies led to his evidence being discredited.

NSW Detective Sergeant Jason Breton, who had travelled to Greece several times to give evidence in the case, was found to be ineligible under Greek law because he had previously come into contact with defence witnesses.

Anas eventually gave evidence, and accused Hakki Souleyman of framing him: "Everything Hakki said was a lie." He said Souleyman planned the robbery with Jullio Quinteros, who was a drug dealer: "Hakki knew that Quinteros was responsible but because of his drug addiction he needed Quinteros, so he framed me." Anas then claimed that on the morning of the shooting he was at a pub trying to buy drugs. This contradicted his earlier claim that he was at Instint with Quinteros, and also Ms Sellis' claim that he was at home with her. He was then asked about mobile telephone records that showed he was in the area of the shooting in Summer Hill at the time, but he told the court that Telstra records were wrong, and that this was a "common problem" in Australia.

Judge Mexas dismissed his explanations, saying "What you have said so far does not make any sense at all. We don't have the slightest evidence that Hakki or Quinteros had any connection to this incident. We find it difficult to believe that a friend of yours, a good friend of yours, could accuse you of such a thing. Usually a naive man like Hakki does not lie. He tells the truth." Anas then claimed that Souleyman framed him because he (Anas) was more popular with women - "probably because I am better looking."

In Greece, as throughout most of Europe, criminal trials are conducted under the Inquisitorial system, rather than the Adversarial system seen in Austalia, America, Canada, Great Britain and most other Commonwealth countries. Not only can judges ask questions and cross-examine witnesses, members of the jury are also allowed ask questions of the witness. The four jurors asked "The court has heard how when Hakki told you that Mrs Soravia had been shot, you said "I don't give a shit". Is that true?" Anas said No. He then launched an attack on Louis Soravia, saying he was "very powerful and very dangerous. If I don't get convicted I'll be dead in a month." He also said Louis was a "bad father", and forced his sons to "steal" from the service station because he gave them so little.

Louis and Toula's son Alex, who was a passenger in the car when his mother was shot at point-blank range, was devastated by the accusations levelled at his father. "I am very close to dad, I love him very much and I have a lot of respect for him. And the way they made my dad look was absolutely disgraceful... Its been pretty stressful... Just sitting there across from him and seeing the way he acts makes you realise what type of vermin of society that he actually is. I think in some ways, a conviction, after all we have been through, getting him in jail will be a win for us."

Judge Mexas then questioned Anas about inconsistencies in his earlier evidence, and asked him "So you say you love this country so much, and that you trust this justice system, how many times have you bothered to come to this country? Or is it true that you came here just one month after the murder?" Anas admitted it was true he had never been to Greece before this. He also stated he was allowed to leave Australia because the police did not have enough evidence to keep him there.

Anas' mother, who had travelled to Greece from Melbourne with his father, was next to give evidence. In what was described as bitter, angry and emotional evidence, she dramatically accused Louis Soravia of killing her other son. George, the younger brother of Stephen suffered from diabetes which led to his death in 1996, however she claimed he died after seeing his brother on TV during the investigation. "I feel sorry for Toula Soravia, but I hate her husband. He never came to ask me about my son. That man is the only person responsible for my son's death." She also accused Louis of lying over the amount of insurance money he received. She insisted Steve was a good, church-going son with strong family values: "I am a very proud Greek and I wanted my son to be a very proud Greek as well."


Judge Mexas asked Mrs Anas "Did your son ever take drugs?" She replied that "I have never seen anything like that." Judge Mexas then informed her that the court had evidence of Stephen's involvement with drugs. Mrs Anas also tried to support one of her son's alibis by claiming he had received a parking ticket on the morning of the shooting, however Judge Mexas told her the matter had already been investigated and there was no such ticket.


In summing up, the prosecution described Anas as immodest and arrogant. "This is a man who loves himself to death... He believes that he is intelligent, cool, good looking, and right about everything. He said he wanted to be tried under the Greek justice system because it was so fair. How did he know it was fair when he didn't even know Greece? He just went to Mykonos and Santorini for a holiday". The lawyer said Anas had told a "barrage of lies", painting a massive conspiracy involving the police, the witnesses, the media and the Soravias. "This is a man who grew up playing rugby, which is a violent sport, he loved fast cars, and he went to a very tough school where he said he got into a lot of fights. Therefore he became a very aggressive person. Even his wife said he threatened to kill her and that she took out a restraining order against him." He said Laurie Sellis "had lied through her teeth" when she attempted to give him an alibi.

Mr Katsantonis, one of the most revered lawyers in Greece, told the court Anas was a "smart-arse.. He sat in this court room and told all of us nothing of the incident but only of himself. He told us how he and Hakki had many girlfriends. He told us about his fast cars and what a good athlete he was. He has the typical behaviour of all immigrant criminals who believe that the police hate them, conspire against them, and always gets treated badly by the police." Anas frowned throughout, although earlier he had winked at family and friends, confident of the outcome.

Mr Katsantonis continued his tirade against Anas and his evidence. "Steve Anas' demeanour, his way of communicating, everything about him says 'shit, fuck off''. His parents came into court to tell us what a good kid he was, but when he wasn't believed by anyone in this court, they started blaming the Australian press. Anas even had the nerve to say why didn't Mr Soravia go find him and ask him what happened. However it was Anas who was twenty times obliged to go and tell him 'Louis, I'm innocent, I will help you find out who killed your wife."

The panel of three judges and four jurors acquitted Anas of all charges, by a majority vote of four to three (Judge Mexas and two jurors voted to convict, the other two judges and remaining two jurors voted to acquit). Mrs Anas rushed up to her son, wailing, thanking the Greek legal system and God for freeing her son: "This was God's gift". The presiding Judge, Spiros Mexas stated "Even though I found him guilty on both counts, the jury has ruled against my decision". Mr Soravia was numb: "I am in total disbelief by this court's acquittal." The Greek prosecution said it would consider an appeal, however Louis said it was time to "turn the page" and devote the rest of his life to his family.

As he was put in a van to be returned to military service in Samos, he shouted to his father that he loved him. He also asked that two bottles of whisky be delivered to the Greek police who sat beside him during the trial. Two days later, he flew to Athens instead, as he had been released by the Greek army from completing his military service, due to the time he spent in custody awaiting the trial.

He said "I want to get my life back in order and do everything right, by the law, and just get on with my life. I want to come back to Australia one day, of course I do. I am going to do that one day, whether I do it today, tomorrow, or the next day, I am going to do it one day. I am not scared... I've got to go back to bury my brother... People tell me they are writing that Australia's most wanted is free in Greece. How can I be Australia's most wanted? My God, I have a clean record... I feel I have been unjustly treated by the media and I hope something positive will happen now... I was kept in an army jail for, like, seven months and they said the army is finished for me. I can't believe I am free. Its been a really rough seven months, but I am free."

The news understandably angered Louis Soravia: "I can't believe it. He was supposed to do 15 months [national service]. This is a joke. Its an absolute joke." Anas refused to comment on Mr Soravia, but said "All I know is I feel sorry for Alex Soravia, what he went through is unbelievable. But I have been to hell and back too. Everybody who was involved in that crime, they deserve to be behind bars for the rest of their lives. That's it, you take a life, you lose a life, that's the way it goes. But it doesn't really concern me much anymore."

Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery said that Anas would face arrest if he ever returned to Australia: "This is not the absolute and automatic end to this matter."

Greek Tragedy - Part I

Stephen Anas had been a regular customer at his local BP Service Station in Summer Hill for at least two years. It was owned by Louis Soravia. He was good friends with console operater Hakki Souleyman, who seemed to harbour some resentment towards his employer. He had made some comments to a fellow employee Hedley about being ripped off by Mr Soravia and that he wanted to 'get him' one day, and that "I should get someone to knock me on the head when I've got the takings", but Hedley thought he was just "blowing off steam" or "mouthing off", which of course is not uncommon in employer-employee relationships, as we all know. Nonetheless, it seems Hakki may have harboured some resentment towards Mr Soravia.

Steve Anas took advantage of this, and began to discuss money handling arrangements with Hakki, and eventually talked to him about robbing the service station. Hakki's brother said in an early police interview that Steve was coming in once or twice a week and putting some pressure on Hakki, saying "we'll do the service station job.. its all organised, all planned Haks, you've got nothing to worry about. Just tell us what time they do the banking." One day Steve came in and showed him a small black pistol. He said it was just to scare people so they could take the money. According to Hakki he didn't know if it was meant to be loaded or not - all he was meant to do was let them know the time the Soravia's go to the bank.

At trial Hakki denied all knowledge that Anas was planning to rob the service station, or that he had even known or heard of Anas. Hakki's brother also recanted his statements to the police.

Steve Anas was also good friends with David Zammit through mutual connections at a window tinting business called Instint. It was unclear if Hakki ever met Zammit - he certainly denied any knowledge of him at trial. However there was the statement of a "Mr A", who was Hakki's cellmate in Long Bay, who said that Hakki told him he had met both Anas and Zammit before the intended robbery (along with a man called something like 'Julio'), and supplied them with the details they wanted. Hakki said he did it because he needed the money - he was behind in his car and house payments, and was not getting paid enough by Mr Soravia. He told Mr A that he was not supposed to know Zammit, but had seen him at jail visits and spoken to him on a number of occasions. Mr A said Hakki told him that he knew for sure that Zammit had shot his boss, and that Anas was driving.

Jail records confirmed that Zammit had visited the jail at the relevant times, and that the two had opportunity to speak. But the jury never heard Mr A's evidence, as it was considered too prejudicial for a number of reasons (these included the fact that Mr A had a criminal record that included dishonesty offences; that he had been diagnosed with a severe personality disorder that apparently made him prone to pathological lying; and general law that states that the uncorroborated evidence of an informant who hoped to receive a discount in his own sentence is unreliable).

At around 9:30am on 26 April 1994 Hakki spoke to Anas on the phone, and gave him important information about the contents of the till, the times the banking would be done, and the colour and make of the car Mr Soravia would drive to the bank, carrying almost $7,000. Unfortunately on this day, Mr Soravia asked his wife Toula a favour - that she would bank the takings for him. She agreed, and took his car.

At about 11:00 am, Toula left the service station with her 17-year-old son Alex, heading for the Westpac Bank with the weekend's takings. Just as they pulled up outside the bank, Zammit leaned in through the passenger-side window, pulled the pistol from the front of his pants and pushed it against Alex's head. Alex instinctively brushed it away at first, not realising what it was. Then he saw Zammit leaning into the car, holding the gun in his right hand. He yelled "where's the money? Where's the money?". Toula began to scream. Zammit leaned further into the car, across Alex, and pushed the pistol against Toula's cheek. Alex tried to hit Zammit's arm away. Zammit continued to shout at Toula and threaten her, then Alex saw him shoot his mother. The car filled up with smoke. Toula died almost instantly from her head injuries.

Zammit grabbed the bag of cash and ran across the street, where he was picked up by the driver of a white Toyota Corolla. Some passers-by gave chase, one of them yelling "stop him, he's got the money", but were unsuccessful. Ricky Patman was in his car at the time and tried to chase the Toyota, but was cut off by a garbage truck. Anthony Mimica also joined the pursuit but was similarly foiled by the reversing garbage truck. A bus driver saw the white Toyota swerve around the garbage truck and hit a speed bump, causing its exhaust to hang down. As the car raced off, it nearly collided with Eugene Benitez, who yelled at the driver. Zammit looked out of the passenger window and swore at him.

Eugene was less than a metre away from the car at the time, and later positively identified Zammit from police identification photographs and videotape. He said Zammit's haircut was different, but on seeing the face, he said "bingo". Alex Soravia also positively identified Zammit from police photographs, stating "yes, that's the one I saw. There is no doubt whatsoever. I could never be more definite of anything in my entire life. The photo of that man ... is the man that took my mother's life, that is the fact I will live with until the day I die."

Several witnesses described one of the offenders wearing pink-soled running shoes, and mirrorred sunglasses with a cord. Both these items were found during a search of Stephen Anas' home.

The white Toyota Corolla was recovered on 27 April in St Peters. The number plate (partially damaged) was SDO 359, which matched the details supplied by Ricky Patman, as well as two other witnesses, and its exhaust pipe was hanging down. Police found that the car was used in connection with the Instint window tinting business.

Jullio Quinteros, the owner of Instint, said that when he left the workshop on 23 April, the white Toyota was there, but was absent when he returned to work on 26 April. However, he did notice that Steve Anas's motorbike was parked on the footpath. Anas and Zammit arrived at the shop between 12:30 and 1pm.

Zammit claimed he had been to Instint on the 25th April, but on the morning of the 26th he was at home with his mother. He said he spoke to a couple across the road - Andrew Rice and Melissa Borland - and a neighbour, Jackie Loveridge, and spent the afternoon at Michael Atsis' place. Rice said he'd seen Zammit at his gate at 11:00 am, and Loveridge said she spoke to him from 11:05 to 11:20am. However both were discredited when it was discovered they had criminal records for dishonesty and misleading police. Melissa Borland has no recollection of seeing Zammit. Michael Atsis refused to speak to police and could not be found to call as a witness. Zammit's parents also refused to speak with police.

At trial, the defence tried to discredit both Alex Soravia's and Eugene Benitez's positive identification of Zammit, saying that they must have seen news items showing the Identikit sketches put together by other witnesses. However it was apparent that these sketches bore little resemblance to Zammit, and had been perhaps confused with some of the chasers at the scene. Defence also submitted that Alex was too distressed to have seen the shooter properly, and Eugene had only a "split second" to see the man in the car. Both these arguments were clearly rejected.

At Hakki Souleyman's first trial, he was charged with accessory before the fact of murder, however the jury was unable to reach a verdict, telling the judge they stood deadlocked at 11:1 in favour of finding Souleyman guilty. At the second trial he was acquitted altogether of that charge, but found guilty of the lesser offence of being an accessory before the fact of armed robbery, and sentenced to six years in prison. He was released in April 2000.

David Zammit was convicted of the murder of Toula Soravia (pictured below), and sentenced to 24 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 18 years. He was also sentenced to ten years for the armed robbery.

Stay tuned for Part II - the trial of Stephen Anas.

A Callous Remark

Colleen Sharpe lived with her husband in Katoomba, in the Blue Mountains. She was 53 years old. About half-way through 1995 she met Arthur Whitmore, a 66 year old man who also lived in the area. They began an affair, meeting secretly at both their homes, whenever possible. Arthur moved to the Central Coast later in 1995, but they continued their affair, meeting up in Katoomba frequently. Mr Sharpe was completely unaware of the liaison between his wife and Mr Whitmore.

On 25 April 1996, Colleen flew to Brisbane to visit a relative, and arranged with Arthur that he would meet her up there. They came back together on the 29th, and Colleen decided it was time to come clean and tell her husband what was going on. She phoned him at work, and when he came home, he found her packing her clothes. Not long after, Arthur arrived at the Sharpe's house, and he and Colleen left together.

However the next afternoon, Colleen rang her husband and said she would be coming home. A few minutes later the phone rang again, but this time it was Arthut Whitmore calling to tell Mr Sharpe in no uncertain terms that Colleen would not be returning home to him. Mr Sharpe was concerned, as he could hear his wife in the background stating that she would be going back to him, and Arthur replying aggressively that she would not. Arthur rang the Sharpe home once more later that evening, stating again that Colleen would not be coming home, and later Colleen also rang, agreeing that she would not be coming home after all.

The following morning, just before 8:00am, Colleen telephoned Mr Sharpe again, and said that when she returned to Katoomba, she would be staying with her friend Grace Rogers. The call was then abruptly terminated. Mr Sharpe, correctly as it turned out, interpreted this as a coded message from his wife, since Grace Rogers was a mutual friend of theirs who had been murdered some six years earlier. Mr Sharpe immediately went to the police station and reported the situation. He returned home shortly before 10:00am, whereupon he recieved yet another phone call from Arthur, this time telling him that his wife was dead. Mr Sharpe hung up the phone in shock, but Arthur rang back again and invited Mr Sharpe to come around and collect his wife's body. The Judge described this "as callous a remark as one could imagine".

Arthur then phoned his sister and complained to her that despite "all he had done" to arrange a pension for Colleen, and for her to move into his house, she had threatened to leave. Accordingly, he shot her between the eyes with a pistol at point-blank range.

When the police arrived and placed him under arrest, he told them Colleen had assaulted him, and then demanded money in exchange for sex. It later emerged that he had been convicted in 1968 for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon his wife at the time. At that earlier trial he stated that his wife had been aggressive towards him regarding sex, and had victimized him with her demands. Needless to say that jury did not believe him and convicted him of the offence.

Following a guilty verdict in his trial for the murder of Colleen Sharpe, Arthur was sentenced to a total of 25 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years. He appealed that sentence, as he objected to the Judge's conclusion that he had a dangerous habit of attacking women when problems arose in their relationship. He also told the Appeal Court that the Judge had not taken into account his advanced years, which in his view meant he should have received a lighter sentence. Finally, he rather gallingly suggested that his sentence was too severe for what he described as an "ordinary domestic murder".

Needless to say, the Appeal Court rejected all these points. They found there was little to be said in favour of Mr Whitmore. He clearly intended to kill Colleen, merely to vent his rage, and had shown no remorse for his actions. Furthermore, the judge had infact taken his age into account by setting a lower than normal non-parole period. Finally, the suggestion that it was an "ordinary domestic murder" was rejected out of hand.

Arthur Whitmore is due for release on the 30 April, 2011.