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.
Chaouk has launched an enchantment towards his homicide conviction after a Victorian Supreme Courtroom jury discovered him responsible of fatally capturing Haddara, 28, from behind outdoors the sufferer's Altona North house in June 2009.
He claims jurors have been wrongly advised his spouse and mother-in-law had lied about his alibi earlier than deciding his responsible verdict in 2018, the Courtroom 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 towards 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 must be overturned resulting from "particular and compelling circumstances" relating to using his spouse and mother-in-law's alibi proof through the trial.
"It was steered within the closing deal with by prosecution counsel that each of those girls had lied," Lange advised 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 danger of misuse of the rejection of the alibi proof, in order to offer rise to particular circumstances."
Lange mentioned the ladies's alibi was in keeping with what his shopper had advised police when he was interviewed.
He alleged the jury was not correctly directed by the trial choose about methods to take care of the case in the event that they concluded Chaouk, his accomplice and her mom had lied in regards to 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, an inclination 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 choose's instructions to the jury have been rigorously curated and that Chaouk's attorneys didn't ask for the route in regards to the alibi proof.
Had the jury been given this route, Boyce mentioned it will not have helped Chaouk's case.
Justices Geoffrey Priest, David Seashore and Stephen McLeish reserved their resolution.
© AAP 2022