A man sentenced to a minimum of 15 years for his role in a violent home invasion murder is to have another chance at acquittal following a significant error admitted by prosecutors. Warwick Hunter, a 49-year-old father of two, was fatally stabbed during an armed robbery at his western Sydney residence.
Samir Chamma, 32, and John Hicks, 35, received guilty verdicts for murder in 2023 after a jury determined that both defendants were aware there was a “non-fanciful probability” that Hunter would be killed during the robbery. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal has now quashed Chamma’s conviction and ordered a retrial.
The appeal was triggered by the Crown’s failure to inform jurors that a significant witness—whose identity is protected—had been offered a reduced sentence for unrelated charges in exchange for their cooperation. Prosecutors acknowledged that this omission could have influenced the jury’s decision, constituting a miscarriage of justice.
Chamma and Hicks were accused of ambushing Hunter and stealing money after learning he had a significant amount of cash at his home. During the attack, Hicks stabbed Hunter, with Chamma reportedly involved in preparing a sheath for the weapon. While Hicks received a 23-year prison sentence with a minimum of 16 years, Chamma was sentenced to 21 years with a 15 year and nine-month non-parole period.
Now granted a retrial, Chamma is set to be re-arraigned in the NSW Supreme Court on July 4. Although he presented arguments that the murder conviction was unreasonable and sought to be charged with the lesser offence of manslaughter, the appeal court upheld that the jurors had sufficient grounds to find him guilty of murder. Justices Mark Leeming and Robertson Wright noted that evidence suggested Chamma proceeded with the robbery aware that it could lead to severe harm or death.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Belinda Rigg expressed that she would have acquitted Chamma, stating she could not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he had foreknowledge that Hicks would use the knife with lethal intent. As the case unfolds, the impact of the procedural misstep by the prosecution raises critical questions about the integrity of the judicial process and the standards of evidence required in such serious criminal matters.