R v Phuong Canh Ngo (No 3) - [2001] NSWSC 1021

Reported Decision:
125 A Crim R 495

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v Ngo [2001] NSWSC 1021

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70086/98

HEARING DATE(S): 12 October 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 November 2001

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW)
Phuong Canh Ngo - Prisoner

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : MG Tedeschi QC / RA Hulme - Crown
PJ Pearsall - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
LMG Solicitors & Attorneys - Prisoner

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - victim a member of Parliament - killed for political reasons - protection of persons in public life - application of s 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 19A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 21(1), 28, 61(1) & (3)

CASES CITED: The Queen v de Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469; 50 NSWLR 409
R v Kalajzich (1997) 94 A Crim R 41
R v Barker (unreported - NSWCCA - 20 September 1995)
R v Rose [1999] NSWCCA 327
R v Fernando [1999] NSWCCA 66
R v Kocan [1966] 2 NSWR 565
The Queen v Eastman (ACTSC - 10 November 1995)
AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46, 198 CLR 111
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76

DECISION: Prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL

70086/98

Dunford J

Wednesday, 14 November 2001

R v Phuong Canh NGO
Remarks on Sentence

On 29 June last, the Jury found the prisoner, Phuong Canh Ngo, guilty of the murder of the late John Newman MP who was shot outside his home at 15 Woods Avenue, Cabramatta on 5 September 1994. The shots were fired by a person who came to the scene by car and was driven away at speed immediately after the shooting, and the Jury's verdict established that the killing was instigated and organised by the prisoner.

2 The Crown case depended to a large extent on the evidence of two alleged accomplices who had been granted immunity from prosecution. Their names have been suppressed and I shall refer to them simply as W1 and W2. They each gave evidence of previous attempts on the deceased’s life instigated by the prisoner, and although W1 said that he was not involved after about May 1994, W2 gave evidence that he was in the motor vehicle which carried the shooter to and from the scene of the shooting on the night of the murder, although he claimed he was tricked into being there by a switch of mobile phones in the office of the Mekong Club. He identified the persons whom he said were the shooter and driver and claimed that, although in the car, he did not know why he was there, and in particular did not know that the shooting was to take place.

3 The Defence challenged W2's version of what occurred…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Phuong Canh Ngo (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWSC 1021
Decision Date: 14 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Phuong Canh Ngo (No 3), the defendant was convicted of the murder of a member of parliament, a crime committed for political reasons. The case was heard in the NSW Supreme Court, where the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant. The legal issues before the court included the need to consider the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the murder, and the specific provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, particularly section 61(1), which addresses the protection of persons in public life.

The court examined the principle of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the punishment fit the crime while also considering the need to protect individuals in positions of public office. Given that the victim was a member of parliament and the murder was politically motivated, the court had to balance these factors against the need to deter similar crimes in the future. The court also took into account the defendant's background, circumstances of the offence, and any mitigating factors that might be relevant.

After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the gravity of the offence warranted a substantial sentence. The court emphasised the importance of protecting individuals in public life and ensuring that such heinous acts do not go unpunished. The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. This sentence was deemed appropriate given the severity of the crime and the need to uphold the protection of public officials.

Orders