Matthew Harley Gempton tells murder trial of Peter Nguyen-Ha his former friend fired fatal shots
Peter Nguyen-Ha is on trial, accused of murdering Ralph Matthews Cox, who was shot dead through the bedroom window of his Landsdale home in January 2022.
The court had heard that Mr Nguyen-Ha and Matthew Harley Gempton had gone to the home looking for another man over stolen money.
Gempton, who has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Matthews Cox, has taken the stand to give evidence for the prosecution in return for a reduced sentence.
Gempton told the WA Supreme Court Mr Nguyen-Ha loaded a shotgun when they were driving to Landsdale, assuring him they were only "salt rounds".
The court heard that when they arrived Mr Nguyen-Ha walked to the house, wearing a mask and carrying the shotgun.
He told the court he heard someone say "who turned the power off" and "who's out the front".
Gempton told the court Mr Nguyen-Ha called out "where's Anthony Prior" and then fired three times.
He said he then heard a woman scream.
He described the third shot as "definitely louder" than the others and said he saw "a big flame that lit up the front of the house".
He told the court that when Mr Nguyen-Ha got back into the car, he said he "just shot at the window, the corner of the window" to scare them.
Gempton maintained he did not find out until later that someone had died, when he saw it on the news.
Police had said Mr Cox, who suffered fatal injuries in the shooting, had no involvement with crime and was an innocent victim.
Gempton was a debt collector for drug money, telling the court he used to drive Mr Nguyen-Ha around in return for money and meth.
The 36-year-old said he had been using methylamphetamine "more than once a day".
He also told how he came to shoot himself in the leg after Mr Nguyen-Ha was assaulted, and had tens of thousands of dollars stolen in December 2021.
He said he was driving someone else's car, searching for Mr Nguyen-Ha, who had asked him to go to a 7-Eleven in Wangara.
Gempton said he looked around inside the vehicle for a weapon and found a rifle he did not know was there.
"Pulled it out and sat it on my lap, and it went off," Gempton said.
"Scorched all the nerve endings on one side.
"Just pissing out blood on one side."
He went to Joondalup Hospital, where he was interviewed by police but lied to them, claiming he was shot by a bikie.
Gempton denied firing any guns on the night of the Landsdale shooting, or in earlier incidents in Girrawheen and Wanneroo which took place days earlier.
In these, he and others, including Peter Nguyen-Ha, had allegedly targeted the wrong homes looking for Anthony Prior.
Prosecutor Beau Sertorio asked Gempton why he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and other charges if he had never actually fired a weapon.
The 36-year-old said he still "had a role to play", saying he did not call police after the first shooting at Girrawheen.
He told the court that initially, he "thought it was just going to be a fight with Anthony Prior" and following that he "got told to go" to the other scenes.
At Wanneroo and Landsdale he was "just driving", he said.
The court heard Gempton's sentence was cut by more than five years and nine months, to 12 years, and he could be re-sentenced if he did not give full and truthful evidence.
He is due to be cross-examined on Monday.
The trial continues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
35 minutes ago
- ABC News
SA Water to face penalty over botched reservoir drainage incident
SA Water is facing a criminal penalty for causing "serious environmental harm" when an engineer ignored a water quality test result while draining a Barossa Valley reservoir for maintenance work, a court has heard. The water utility — which is wholly owned by the SA government — appeared in the Environment Resources and Development Court over its actions when draining the Warren Reservoir, about 10 kilometres from Williamstown, in May 2023. The court heard that a test result indicating poor water quality during the draining procedure was "not given much credibility" and "ignored", allowing the escape of grey clay silt and "a significant smothering event for the downstream habitat" of the South Para River. A lawyer for SA Water told the court the maintenance work was scheduled to replace the reservoir's original valves, which had been installed when it was built more than a century ago during World War One. Dr Victoria Gilliland, for SA Water, said the maintenance works were "necessary" to replace the aging and unreliable valves, because only the middle of its three intake valves was "safe to operate". She said the "very thing" the maintenance works were trying to prevent was what happened, when the bottom could not be immediately closed to prevent further damage to the surrounding waterways. She said there was a known difficulty with closing the bottom valve, but there was no immediate attempt to close it when the poor water quality test was reported. "Ultimately there is no dispute that what happened is that that reading was ignored and no action was taken in relation to that reading," Dr Gilliland said. She told the court SA Water admitted "mistakes were made" but had immediately reported the event and spent almost $1 million on remedial works — including ongoing testing. Dr Gilliland said the corporation had immediately pleaded guilty and urged the court to impose a fine "at the lower end of the scale". The court heard SA Water had two prior convictions for environmental breaches, in 2004 and 2009, but that procedures had improved since. Stephanie Wilson, prosecuting, said samples taken after the incident found recently deposited grey clay silt almost 30 centimetres deep in areas closer to the reservoir. She said the slurry was also detected almost 3 kilometres into the South Para River. Ms Wilson told the court SA Water had a lack of contingency planning which may have prevented the environmental harm, and should have acknowledged the initial poor quality water reading. She said the engineer overseeing the project had explained that "she wasn't sure whether the samples were being taken accurately due to it being a shallow site and that she planned to retest … the following day". But, Ms Wilson said by the following day, the reservoir had drained completely. She said SA Water also knew that once opened, the bottom of three valves at the reservoir could not be immediately closed, and that efforts to prevent the harm were delayed, in part due to wet weather and the terrain, with a bung not installed for several days. "While it is obvious there were logistical and technical issues hampering those efforts to take action sooner, better understanding of the risk and preparation that took into account the difficult terrain … might have improved the response," Ms Wilson said. She said SA Water were "wholly unprepared for what occurred". Senior Judge Michael Durrant will impose a sentence on a date to be set.
ABC News
35 minutes ago
- ABC News
Queensland inmate arrested after allegedly escaping from prison on tractor
A prisoner accused of escaping from a Far North Queensland prison on a tractor has been found in a small coastal community more than 100 kilometres away. Michael Graeme Rennie, 43, had been serving a six-year sentence at Mareeba's Lotus Glen Correctional Facility for serious assault, theft and burglary when he allegedly absconded on June 1. Police said Rennie was tracked to a bush camp at Cow Bay, north of Port Douglas. He has been charged with one count each of escaping lawful custody, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and possession of dangerous drugs. Rennie is expected to appear in Cairns Magistrates Court later today. Detective Inspector Jason Chetham said Rennie was arrested without incident. "He was in the company of a 48-year-old woman from Rocky Point … we're talking with her," Inspector Chetham said. He said it was not clear how Rennie moved between the remote Mareeba location west of Cairns to Cow Bay in the Daintree, about 120 kilometres away. "We hopefully will piece that together," Inspector Chetham said. "We did know that he had a good deal of bushcraft, so that he'd likely to be off the grid somewhere … as you can imagine there's a lot of forestry up here." He said police were yet to locate the red tractor and that anyone with information should call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.
ABC News
36 minutes ago
- ABC News
What does Diddy's racketeering charge mean? What happens next in his trial?
Jurors in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs have told the New York court they are unable to agree on the most serious charge he's facing. They agreed on four of the five charges against him but, after two days of deliberations, they're still divided on one charge. A jury can only give a verdict on a charge if all 12 jurors agree. Here's what that means for the trial and what we can expect next. The jury is still deliberating on one charge. Prosecutors, Mr Combs's legal team and Judge Arun Subramanian agreed that it was too soon to give up on reaching a verdict on every charge. Mr Subramanian told the jury to continue deliberating on the remaining charge. The court has not heard their verdict on the other four charges. Jurors have told the court they have agreed on the trafficking and prostitution charges. But the jurors can't agree on the racketeering conspiracy charge. "We have jurors with unpersuadable opinions on both sides," they said in a note. The racketeering charge is the most serious charge against Mr Combs — it carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. It's a charge under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) The US government introduced this law in 1970 to take down crime gangs — the aim was to tie crime bosses to the offences of those working under them. Here's an explanation of "racketeering" and "conspiracy" in the context of US law: The prosecution accused Mr Combs of using his business, the Combs Enterprise, to violently coerce and blackmail women to perform sex acts, among other criminal acts. The law allows prosecutors to combine related offences that otherwise would have had to be prosecuted separately in different states, the US Department of Justice website explains. It also provides a way for prosecutors to ensure their case "adequately reflects the nature and extent of the criminal conduct involved in a way that prosecution only on the underlying charges would not". And, in this case, it allowed the prosecutors to use evidence they would not have been able to use if Mr Combs was charged only with sex trafficking. "RICO allows you to bring in the bigger picture," former US prosecutor Bobby Taghavi said. "[That includes] his lifestyle, his power, his anger issues, the way people had to obey him — the 360-degree view of his conduct." During the trial, the court heard allegations of separate incidents of abuse and other criminal behaviour, but the law focuses on a broader system of criminal acts. In order to secure a guilty verdict on a RICO charge, prosecutors must show that: Members of a so-called enterprise, or group of people engaged in a common purpose, committed or planned to commit two other crimes in connection with the enterprise within a 10-year period We don't know yet. All we know is that the jury agreed on four charges. But we don't know whether they have found Mr Combs guilty or not guilty of those charges. The jury may be allowed to deliver a partial verdict. A partial verdict means a jury giving a verdict on the charges they did agree on — while a mistrial may be declared for the other charges they didn't agree on. The prosecution would have the option of running a retrial on the charge they couldn't agree on, the Legal Information Institute's website says. It's difficult to predict what the prosecution would do without knowing the jury's verdict on the other charges. If the jury finds Mr Combs not guilty on the other charges, the prosecution might be more inclined to push ahead with a retrial on the racketeering charge. But if the jury finds Mr Combs guilty and the prosecution is satisfied with the length of his jail sentence, it might be less inclined to go for a retrial. The prospect of a retrial would likely be highly distressing to prosecution witnesses who went through the ordeal of having to relive alleged traumatic assaults in such a public setting. No. A person is only sentenced after the jury has delivered a guilty verdict. And, at the moment, we still don't know if the jury has found Mr Combs guilty or not guilty. Mr Combs is currently behind bars because he was denied bail ahead of the trial — not because he's serving a prison sentence. Currently, New York time — which is called Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) — 14 hours behind Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST). So when it's 9am in Sydney, it's 7pm in New York. This means that any major updates from the trial will probably come either very late at night or early in the morning here in Australia.
