Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
The Crown case against Usman Chami and co-accused Noah Touma alleges the pair took part in a joint criminal enterprise in relation to the murder Suman Mokhtarian, at 7.47 pm on 20 February 2024, by shooting him at close range outside his gym on Wentworth Avenue, right next door to the Wentworthville police station. Chami is said to have assisted in preparations and acted as a spotter at the time.
On the day of the incident, Chami arrived at the gym at 5.30 pm, driving his grandfather’s Holden SUV, which he parked on the street west of the gym. He participated in two classes. Then he left saying goodbye to Mokhtarian, who was out the front talking to people, and the accused walked east at 7.41 pm, bought a drink at a store, then headed back west in the direction of his vehicle.
The shooter rode past on a white scooter heading west at 7.44 pm, wearing a full-face helmet and a food delivery bag on his back. He parked and walked towards the gym, approaching the group of people. He pulled a pistol from the front waistband of his pants, raised it to chest level and pointed it at Mokhtarian. The shooter fired one bullet but hit no one, as the pistol malfunctioned.
Mokhtarian called out “run”, and people scattered. The owner then ran inside the gym, where about 30 people were. The shooter fired three more times as he chased Mokhtarian towards the backdoor, and each bullet missed its target. The four shots were fired within 8 seconds. The assailant then ran out of the gym, jumped on his scooter and took off in a westerly direction.
Armin Sepher was speaking to Mokhtarian when the shooter appeared, and he ran and hid behind Chami’s SUV. Following the incident, Sepher saw Chami in the van and told him to call the police, which he did. Chami then re-entered the gym and asked what had happened. NSW police officers appeared on the scene immediately and interviewed witnesses, including Chami.
The shooter discarded the scooter in a nearby street, set it on fire using accelerant and took off in a Mazda sedan with fake number plates, which was then parked in Bass Hill, prior to being taken to Lansvale three days later, in convoy with another suspect car to be burnt. And Chami continued to attend the gym until 28 February.
Presumption against bail
Currently, Chami is remanded in the NSW prison system, awaiting to stand trial on 2 March 2026, while Touma has been released on bail.
Chami has been held on remand since his 7 March 2024 arrest, which came to about 15 months in prison without conviction, when he appeared before the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) on 6 June this year, for a third bail application hearing.
Both men have been charged with one count of shooting with intent to murder, contrary to section 29 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which is an offence that carries up to 25 years imprisonment, and it also carries a standard non-parole period (SNPP) of 10 years.
SNPPs act as guideposts for sentencing judges to take into account, when considering the minimum time an offender must serve in prison before being eligible for release on parole.
The pair have also been given a backup charge to be determined if they’re not found guilty of shooting with intent to murder, which consists of one count of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 33A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which also carries a maximum penalty of 25 years gaol time, as well as a 9 year SNPP.
The count of shooting with intent is a ‘show cause’ offence, or a serious criminal offence that carries a presumption against bail, as it’s listed as an offence to which show cause requirements apply, under section 16B of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW).
The 2014-enacted NSW show cause bail regime relates to certain serious crimes. It commenced in early 2015, and it requires an accused to provide reasons why they should not be remanded, which is a reversal of the traditional onus, which is that the prosecution show reason as to why an accused should be remanded. Non-listed offences continue to carry a presumption against bail.
If reasons are presented as to why a person should be released on bail, a bail authority must consider whether the accused’s case and history triggers the bail concerns listed under section 17 of the Bail Act, which include whether they might fail to show up in court, commit another serious criminal offence, endanger the safety of others or interfere with witnesses or evidence.
Chami had previously applied for bail on 16 August 2024 before Justice Natalie Adams and again on 4 April this year, before Justice Deborah Sweeney. As he appeared before the NSWCCA on 6 June, Chami was appealing the denial of the show cause reasons presented to Sweeney, and NSWCCA Justices Anna Mitchelmore, Mark Ierace and Andrew Coleman considered this bail application.
The bail applicant was attempting to show that due to “the limitations of the prosecution case” and that the proposed conditions of bail “effectively” amounted to “house arrest”, any concerns around a bail risk should be mitigated.
Further Chami was only 19 at the time of his arrest and is now 20, he has no prior convictions, he was going to reside at his grandparents residence whilst on bail, and his grandfather was willing to provide a $5,000 bail bond.
The Crown case
The three justices of the NSWCCA noted that the “Crown case against both accused is circumstantial in nature”, and it doesn’t “include evidence of a motive for the alleged offence.”
But the purchase of the scooter was linked to Touma, and the prosecution posits that the CCTV evidence relating to this shows that a Holden Commodore, which in the dark, appeared could be the vehicle belonging to Chami’s mother, picked up Touma and drove him to a premises where he purchased a black scooter. The Holden then dropped him back home afterwards.
Aadhil Sulaiman who owned the scooter, which he sold over Facebook, gave a description of the two men, which fit Touma and Chami. He further recalls Chami getting out of the car and handing Touma $2,000, as negotiations were underway, and Sulaiman had recognised Chami from the past.
Mohammed Karare also gave a statement to NSW police, in which he said he’d been friendly with Touma and Chami for a couple of years, and he’d been hanging out with them over the months prior to the incident. He further told police that he had driven Touma in a van to pick up the scooter on 15 February 2024.
CCTV then shows Touma the next day being picked up, clearly this time, in the Commodore belonging to Chami’s mother, which then drove to a hardware store, where white spray paint was purchased.
Karare also told police that on that same day Touma and another man he did not know, turned up at his place to work on the scooter, and afterwards, he noted that it had been painted white. Touma also had Karare drop the white scooter off at the same street in Bass Hill, where the shooter had allegedly left the Mazda sedan after fleeing the incident.
There is also evidence of a burner phone being used by Chami that was not located. Phone records show that it had been used close to Touma’s residence and near Chami’s grandparents’ home on 12 February, as well as near the gym on the night of the crime.
However, some of the phone records are inconsistent with Chami having been in possession of this phone, and there are suggestions it might have been in the possession of Touma.
Consideration of bail application
The NSWCCA noted that Touma was granted bail by NSW Chief Judge at Common Law Ian Harrison on 6 February 2025, on the proviso that he reside at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility, while his previous bail application had been denied by Justice Hament Dhanji, at which time there had been no suggestion that he would be residing at a rehabilitation clinic.
Justice Harrisson based his decision on “a combination of factors”, including that it was Touma’s first time in custody and his youth, as well as that there was a “delay before trial and a weak prosecution case”, which his Honour added, lacked any motive, while it could have been Chami, who had purchased and painted the scooter.
In terms of Chami’s application, the NSWCCA justices said, “It is trite to observe that the nature of circumstantial evidence is that strands of evidence which are inconsequential in themselves may, in combination, give rise to an irresistible inference of guilt.” And their Honours added there was clear evidence beyond “a series of coincidences”, which reveal a “reasonably strong” case against Chami.
This evidence included that Touma and Chami were friends, and they bought the scooter together and then painted it. In terms of the absence of motive, this was no issue, as when the preparations that went into the gathering of the vehicles to commit the crime, and their subsequent disposal, all this points to the suggestion that organised crime was involved in the incident.
“Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecution case is reasonably strong,” their Honours said, and while they further set out that the points raised to show cause did “weigh in support of his detention not being justified”, their Honours continued to have concerns with Chami showing up to court, endangering the safety of others, and that he could attempt to interfere with witnesses and evidence.
Further, due to the evidence of his association with Karare, who had since become a reluctant Crown witness, and had changed his story over time to claim that the police had coerced him into giving his initial evidence, which, their Honours considered to be suggestive of his having a “degree of vulnerability”, could be problematic if there was “an attempt to influence him”.
“Taking those risks into account,” the three justices of the NSWCCA ruled on 18 June 2025, that “the court is not satisfied that the proposed conditions mitigate them to an acceptable level, so they do not assist the applicant on showing cause. Accordingly, the application for bail is refused”.
