Project Censored Blog

Phuong Ngo Not Guilty - or haven’t you heard about it?

Few Australians could be unaware that Phuong Ngo was convicted in 2001 of the murder (by ‘joint enterprise’) of John Newman the Cabramatta member of parliament.

On the other hand probably few Australians would be aware that Phoung Ngo was found Not Guilty in 2003 of very serious charges i.e. demanding money with menaces (extortion or stand over, in common parlance) from a Cabramatta “businessman” and wounding him in the same alleged incident. Gill Boehringer reports...

I want to explore some of the issues raised by the different ways the media dealt with these two criminal cases.

First, a brief review of the murder case in the media. The coverage given to the killing of Newman in September 1994 was extensive. It was clearly a stunning and very “newsworthy” event: it came to be known as Australia’s first political assassination. (It has been suggested to me that this appellation was previously bestowed on the killing of the anti-drug gang campaigner Donald Mackay but that is another story)
Cabramatta and its problems, essentially presented as Asian (especially Vietnamese) crime and drugs, had featured prominently in the media for a number of years before Newman’s murder. Thus the Newman story slotted easily into an already established understanding. And gave it a new intensity. The very foundations of a democratic society were threatened. Thus a moral panic was constructed. Who killed Newman was a mystery, but it had to be solved. The suspects were obvious: Asian criminals, and typically, the ambitious Mr. Big of Asian politics-the “overlord” who was linked to the shadowy Mekong Club, Phuong Ngo. He was being constituted as the “folk devil”.

The mystery was not solved quickly, but the media retained its interest and coverage. PhuongNgo featured in the speculation which continued. In 1998 the mystery began to unravel. After a period of three years, involving five widely publicized hearings-a coroner’s inquest, a Magistrate’s committal, and three trials- Phuong was convicted, on 29 June 2001, of the murder. It should be pointed out that although there was a “joint enterprise” in law, only Phuong of all those charged in the trials was convicted. And it was never suggested that Phuong shot Newman-he was the “overlord’, the criminal master mind. The manipulative, ambitious “Other” who would not play the political game as it should be played. Phuong was now consecrated as the “folk devil”. He was Australia’s first political assassin!

When on 15 November 2001 Phuong was sentenced to life in prison, never to be released there was another blaze of publicity. Nor a dissenting voice. as there often is when such sentences are handed down. The system had worked. Our guardians had gotten their man. And he got what he deserved. The “folk devil” was never going to be in a position to bother us. There appeared to be closure.

Almost ignored by the media, on 19 November Phuong and Quang Dao(one of the co-accused in the murder trial, found innocent) appeared at a committal hearing and on the 21st were remanded for trial (the “fourth trial) on the two charges mentioned above(extortion and wounding of Vinh Loc Nguyen aka Mr Dung)

It is the manner in which the media dealt with the subsequent “fourth trial” which I wish to examine. But before doing so it is important to note some events which have occurred subsequent to Phuong’s imprisonment and the involvement of the media therein. For the media were not finished with the “folk devil”. He was going to be a very handy little pet now that he was caged. The media has continued to portray Phuong as a danger to our democratic system, even from inside the walls. I will briefly point to some of these stories.
First, there was the well-publicized story of the Lunar New Year celebrations:” Jailhouse Wok” as it came to be presented by the press. Here Phuong was alleged to have corrupted the penal system and possibly the political system-he hosted “banquets’ for convicts and cronies from outside. Premier Carr-who does not have a good record in dealing with ethnic crime in any case-initially and correctly referred to it as a “media beat-up” trying no doubt to close ranks and to kill the story. However he quickly changed tactics. The “folk devil” could be useful-showing how “on top” of things he and his government were. Especially with the allegations which emerged in the second wave of hysteria: that from prison, Phuong was manipulating his former colleagues on Fairfield Local Council to ensure that decisions favoring his interests went the right way. Of course an inquiry into these allegations found nothing of the sort. Like all such stories it did not get the run in the media as did the wild allegations which prompted the inquiry.
Subsequently in an even more bizarre media exercise, Phuong was portrayed as being in alliance with the white racist gang W2K(Willing to Kill) which he was allegedly arranging to pay to spring him from prison. Once again, the government was able to show a bit of “muscle”-Ngo was removed to the Superman jail at Goober where the state’s “high security risk” prisoners are isolated Again, the government scored points. It was in command.Also,the conviction and jailing of Phuong for life could be seen as eminently sensible.The assassin was more than that:he was a real menace to the society in which we live:peaceful,ordered and governed according to the rule of law.

Recently we have had the spectacle of the Orange Grove re-zoning fiasco( a corruption scandal reaching the top of the political and commercial hierarchy?)So Premier Carr trotted out the ‘folk devil” again!How convenient for Mr Carr that in justifying the refusal to allow the re-zoning at Orange Grove he could smear the person seeking the re-zoning Nabil Gazal, by publicly revealing that Gazal had associations with
Phuong Ngo(“Link to Ngo grounds for zoning ban” SMH 20/7/4). The “folk devil” was indeed a corrupting influence….In fairness, though Carr’s comments were covered, the media made little of the matter. It seems on occasions even they find it difficult to stomach political rubbish.

What I am arguing is that in the 1990s the media was instrumental in creating a “moral panic” about Asian(Vietnamese) crime and drugs and by implication immigration which was becoming a significant political issue; that the killing of John Newman (who had many enemies, had had numerous death threats and at least one bullet fired through his office) and the charging of Phuong Ngo resulted in the easy media personification of a “folk devil” in the politically ambitious Cabramatta “overlord”. It should be noted that in the 2d trial there was a hung jury,and the “hold-out juror” claimed that there was considerable racism amongst the jury and intimidation in the jury room calculated to achieve unanimity.

Further,the “folk devil” remains a useful, though unruly or double-edged ,phenomenon. The media can still get plenty of mileage with its beatups, underlining the threat to decent social institutions and processes which he represents. The government shows its efficacious determination to maintain those foundations of our democratic polity, maintaining law and order and rooting out corruption by keeping the “folk devil” and those of similar ilk or aligned with him, under control and surveillance.

Which brings me to the “fourth trial”, in September 2003.In brief, it was alleged that Phuong and Quang(a reputable community worker in the area including Cabramatta ;he was close to Phuong)were again part of a “joint enterprise”, along with T and N (names suppressed since the murder trial) .This time they were alleged to have demanded a large sum of money ( $300,000) from a Mr Dung, and in the process allegedly stabbed him in the hand as a warning/lesson to do as he was told then and in the future.(There was also evidence that Mr Dung was forced to sign documents indicating another large sum owed to Dung had been re-paid by Phuong).

The incident was alleged to have happened on 3 March 1994 ,some 6 months before Newman’s murder. The alleged victim, Dung did not report the matter to the police. The incident apparently came to the attention of the police through the efforts of the State Crime Commission. Here is where the story gets interesting, to say the least.

T and N were given immunity from prosecution in the Newman case in exchange for testimony against Phuong and Quang. But the police, the Crime Commission and the Prosecution were having difficulty in getting a story together that would secure a conviction in that case. Perhaps their major problem was that T and N were unreliable witnesses. Indeed, they told less than the truth on numerous occasions and sometimes just lied. In August and through October1999, the Crime Commission had “discussions” with T and Nether let it be known that the immunity from prosecution for murder was in jeopardy because the lads had not lived up to their side of the bargain.

Sometime during that period August to October 1999,first one and then the other-it is not clear which or precisely when- began to tell the police, and the Crime Commission, a story about an incident which had occurred back in March 1994.And so the basis was laid for the “fourth” or extortion trial. Having been given to understand that they would receive immunity from prosecution for the extortion matter, on 2 November 1999 statements were signed by T and N incriminating Phuong and Quang.
Subsequently Dung was brought to the Crime Commission on 3 occasions (the first with a lawyer),interviewed for about 5 hours each day. He too signed a statement about the alleged incident on the 2nd of December 1999. It seems that in December T and N were told their original immunity would be continued.

Although Dung, T and N all testified in detail about the incident in which they were involved, the jury found both Phuong and Quang Not Guilty. I should point out that the defense lawyers did very considerable and effective cross-examination, and that the judge was strong and scrupulous about ensuring that Phuong and Quang were given a fair trial, not least in his concern about the effect on the jury of past –and contemporaneous-prejudicial publicity. Reading the transcript of the trial. one can understand how the jury came to their verdict. The prosecution witnesses-Dung ,T and N-did not agree upon significant aspects of the incident, nor were their individual stories convincing. The veracity of T and N was directly challenged on the basis of previous lying at hearings and trials; and of course the rather strange way in which the case had come forward must have raised questions in the minds of the jurors.

The question I want to look at is :why did the media largely ignore this case; and in particular why did the two papers which gave extensive coverage to the
Newman trials, run dead on this trial and, especially, the Not Guilty result? Thus, the Sydney Morning Herald apparently did not cover the trial, and gave only a one inch/60 word “sidebar”(page 6) to the verdict(“ Ngo found not guilty” 16 Sept. 2003)and the Daily Telegraph, which did have 3 short pieces during the 2 week trial(the first two by-lined, the third from the AAP it seems),entirely ignored the finding of Not Guilty.(See Appendix for other coverage).

The following commentary is of some help here:

“The Australian media, after being present for the first two days, listening to the opening address by the Crown Prosecutor and the examination of the evidence in chief by the Crown Witness, did not attend the hearing on subsequent days, in order to make themselves aware of and to report the cross-examination by the defence lawyers. This means that the Australian press was only one-sided in its reporting and only carried accusing evidence brought forward by the prosecution, without reporting on certain absurd points brought forward by the prosecution. These points were analyzed and dissected by the defence lawyers. Furthermore, on the following days, when the defence lawyers brought forward in evidence witnesses to countermand the prosecution, the Australian press was not present to report this. This disadvantaged the defendants in the carriage of both justice and prestige, even if the jury had eventually found the defendants not guilty”
From a series of anonymous articles published (in Vietnamese) in the Saigon Times(Sydney);this extract dated the 18th September 2003 (translation by Frank Trinh).

How do we explain what the Saigon Times writer saw very clearly?
An obvious explanation might be that it was really not very newsworthy and somewhat of an anti-climax. It certainly seems that the possible connections between the two cases were not valued or even understood. Just another crime story and not very sexy so to speak. Perhaps. That in itself would be a comment on the capacity of our journalists, especially those covering the crime beat or perhaps more saliently of their editors. But that is not entirely satisfactory as an explanation. Newsworthiness is not a given. Judgments are made, stories can be made newsworthy Consider the following:

1)the Daily Telegraph had 2 stories of 300 words each (by Nicolle Shepherd) relating the prosecution evidence; and one further story of 101 words indicating Phuong’s denial of the charges which was picked up from the AAP. They then chose not to report the verdict. There seems, at least initially, to have been some idea that there might be a story here.

2)One journalist who did try to publish a balanced account of the Newman trial and Phuong Ngo’s life as seen by his friends and supporters, was given advice by others in journalism not to get mixed up in that matter

3)although a long time friend and supporter of Phuong was able to tape another man confessing to the murder of Newman, the media has shown no real interest in the possibility that he-or others- might have had sufficient motive to do the killing(when of course Della Bosca and “Richo” both testified that the highly publicized political motive for Phuong did not really exist)

4)should we really believe that in the circumstances of crime and corruption in this state in 2003(and continuing)-and in other states-that there is no “newsworthiness” in a crime story which involves witnesses who lie and give false testimony in court, apparently with the blessing of the Crime Commission ,the NSW police and the DPP? In particular where those witnesses continue to have immunity from prosecution for activity in crime(s) which have not been solved? Remember,the killer of John Newman is walking the streets today!

There really are some fascinating stories arising out of the “trials of Phuong” and papers to be sold, MONEY to be made in publishing them. So why are they not being published?

The Wall of Silence

While the police and media were quick to blame the Vietnamese community in Cabramatta for maintaining a wall of silence, perhaps the same can be said with even more conviction of the Australian media, in particular about what happened in the prosecution of Phuong and Quang in the “fourth trial”. A Wall of Silence which we in CEFUP have described in our paper-the 20 questions which the media have not asked.

I would argue that the media ,in general, have an important ideological function and perhaps especially now with the high degree of concentration of ownership, media decision makers have a sense of the importance and strength of their role in carrying out that ideological function. This is not to ignore the specific effects which operate: making profits by selling papers, the crusading editors and journalists etc. But these are sometimes over-ridden and/or submerged by an over-arching need to set and support certain agenda in order to secure and maintain the stability and strength of the political order. It seems to me we might consider here the concept of hegemony, loosely the ideological domination in society by the powerful –economic, political and cultural.
I want to quote here from an outstanding piece of work by the late E P Thompson. It suggests what I have in mind when I think about the operation of our media today and in analyzing the treatment of Phuong Ngo.

“Theoretically I am saying this. The concept of hegemony is immensely valuable, and without it we would be at a loss to understand how … social relations were structured. But while such cultural hegemony may define the limits of what is possible, and inhibit the growth of alternative horizons and expectations, there is nothing determined or automatic about this process. Such hegemony can be sustained by the rulers only by the constant exercise of skill, of theatre and concession…such hegemony ,even when imposed successfully, does not impose an all-embracing view of life; rather, it imposes blinkers, which inhibit vision in certain directions while leaving it clear in others’
(Thompson,1973).

The construction, capture and care of the “folk devil” ,Phuong Ngo as the inscrutable, manipulating Asian Godfather, able and willing to corrupt and destroy our democratic institutions-and people- was essentially an exercise in the theatre of hegemony. That work having been done successfully, there is little likelihood that the media will suddenly start undoing it. Concessions are not easily obtained. Thus the “fourth trial” was seen as something quite unnecessary for the maintenance of hegemony and, in fact, potentially destructive of it.

Who knows where it will all end(as my beloved mother used to say) if “ Australia’s first political assassin” comes to be seen as “Australia’s latest political frame-up”!

Posted by ACIJ at 10:42 AM February 18, 2005