Sharab has been charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment, armed robbery, making threats to kill, intentionally and recklessly causing injury and assault.

The widespread dissemination of claims the incident was motivated by political, racial or religious motives has led the lawyers for Allam and co-accused Mohammad Sharab to seek broad suppression orders to stop the spread of misinformation.

The primary investigator in the case, First Constable Daniel Rees, told Melbourne Magistrates’ Court last week there was no evidence at this stage to substantiate News Corp’s claims the incident was motivated by race or religion.

“There is absolutely nothing to substantiate that. In relation to the victim’s statement, there is nothing to substantiate that motive,” he said.

The Murdoch-owned outlets have continued to assert the motivation based in part on its recounting of a conversation that Abusamha had with his employer, in which he claimed to be a victim of political, racial or religious violence because of his employer’s background.

But Abusamha’s sworn victim statement given to police contains no reference to this alleged motive.

In response to a series of stories about the alleged political, racial or religious motivation, Victoria Police issued a statement to deny that motive was part of the police case, criticising the Herald Sun for persisting in its incorrect reporting.

“The first story stated the accused were alleged to have targeted the victim because the victim worked for an employer of a particular religious background,” said Beck Angel, Victoria Police’s director of media and corporate communications.

“This is not correct. That allegation does not form part of the case against the accused and has not been alleged in any evidence or material before the court.”

The initial court hearing for Allam and Sharab was heard in a closed court, at the request of police, where an interim suppression order was granted without a notification being made to the media.

Loading

When an application to strengthen the interim order was made on March 6, the press attended court and opposed the continuation of the order.

There the court heard the suppression order, requested by the pair’s defence teams, would in effect gag the alleged victim in the matter from speaking to the press.

On Tuesday, the magistrate rejected an application to suppress the pair’s names, but approved the making of a broad suppression order related to other matters on safety grounds.

One threatening message posted online, she said, included the words “one bullet one kill”.

“Only positive reporting,” the magistrate said.

A third person has also since been arrested and charged over the alleged kidnapping. Their name remains suppressed from publication.

All are due to return to court in May.