Plot thickens as men alleged in Stuart MacGill's abduction claim his involvement in drug deal

Former Australia cricketer Stuart MacGill’s abduction case has taken another twist after two brothers, allegedly involved in the crime, have claimed that MacGill was involved with them in a drug deal and came with them by will and was never abducted.

The two, identified as Richard and Frederick Schaaf, claimed the same in the District Court while pleading not guilty against abduction and other charges against their name, and seeking the grant of bail after being arrested for their alleged involvement in the incident. MacGill was reportedly abducted in April last year from near his Sydney residence and was threatened at gunpoint by four men.

It was reported further that MacGill, after being forced into a car, was driven towards southwest Sydney in a vacant property before being released in Belmore. He later went hiding for a few days before reaching out to the local authorities, which subsequently led to the arrest of the men.

While MacGill claimed he did no wrong and was innocent, in addition to police’s findings that he was “purely” a victim, the brothers seeking bail have alleged that MacGill had accompanied them to the desolate property in south-west Sydney that day in connection with a drug deal.

The court heard and Judge Alister Abadee said that the incident occurred owing to a drug deal gone wrong in which a dealer, identified as “Sonny” had ripped off a criminal syndicate. The prosecution argued that MacGill introduced Sonny and Sotiropoulos, the brother of MacGill’s partner Maria O’Meagher, and when Sonny used counterfeit currency to procure a large quantity of cocaine, the group asked MacGill to pay as he had “vouched” for Sonny.

“The contention is the complainant [MacGill] was involved in a drug transaction,” Judge Abadee said. Greg Goold, the defence lawyer, claimed that MacGill agreed to get inside the car with the brothers and “had the opportunity to leave”.

“The argument is he consented to go,” Mr Goold said. “Secondly, when they arrive at Bringelly, he was left in a car by himself unrestrained and had the opportunity to leave. Thereafter there was no assault occasioned on him at all.”

Sotiropoulos, meanwhile, had earlier claimed that he only acted as a “middle man” to resolve the issue between all the involved parties and he was not a part of the alleged abduction. Sotiropoulos’ counsel Nicole Mourad had earlier told Central Local Court that there was no link between “her client and the co-accused, the vehicle driven in the incident, or the purchase of items from Bunnings that were used in the alleged kidnapping.”

Mourad had further said that MacGill’s version of the story has “many holes. “The prosecution case relies heavily on statements of the victim and we respectfully submit that this victim is not a reliable witness. His reliability will definitely be a live issue at trial: there are many holes and gaps in what he said in comparison to later versions and statements,” she said.

At that time, the claim made against Sotiropoulos was that he was not physically involved in the kidnapping, but he facilitated the crime by making arrangements for MacGill’s abduction. Sotiropoulos was denied bail on the ground of being “involved in this matter from beginning to end” and that he “clearly had some knowledge of some things”. He will appear in the District Court next month.

Meanwhile, the court heard that Frederick and Richard Schaaf had acted as “hired muscle” during the incident. However, the brothers’ lawyer Goold claimed that MacGill’s evidence could not be relied upon. Goold pleaded for bail for the brothers, offering stringent bail conditions including $100,000 in sureties and reporting to the police twice daily.

Although, their bail application was opposed by police prosecutor Stella Calderbank on grounds that “proposed conditions would not ameliorate the risk of further offending”, as per a dailytelegraph report. As it stands, Judge Abadee denied the brothers’ bail application.