Legal Research
Cases
Kuru v The King

Kuru v The King

Case [2024] NZSC 184 20 December 2024

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER IN [2021] NZHC 1426 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION, IN ANY REPORT OR ACCOUNT RELATING TO THE PROCEEDINGS, OF THE NAMES, ADDRESSES OR OCCUPATIONS OF WITNESSES B, H, O AND AC OR ANY OTHER PARTICULARS LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE WITNESSES’ IDENTIFICATION PURSUANT TO S 113 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2006 REMAINS IN FORCE. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 61/2023
[2024] NZSC 184

BETWEEN	DAMIEN SHANE KURU Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	4 March 2024
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	C W J Stevenson, J H C Waugh and O H Fredrickson for Appellant F R J Sinclair and L C Hay for Respondent
Judgment:	20 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.

BThe appellant’s conviction is set aside.

COrder under ss 233(3)(a) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 that a judgment of acquittal be entered.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Para No
Summary of Reasons	[1]
Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France and Williams JJ	[22]
Glazebrook J	[72]
Kós J	[314]

SUMMARY OF REASONS

(Given by the Court)

This is a summary of the reasons of the Court on the issues likely to have importance for other cases, but it must be read in conjunction with the full reasons.

Background

Mr Ratana, a senior member of the Mongrel Mob, was shot and killed following a confrontation with members of the Black Power Whanganui chapter. After a jury trial, Mr Kuru was convicted as a party to the manslaughter of Mr Ratana under s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.[1]
[1]See below at [22]–[28] per Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France and Williams JJ (the majority) and [72]–‍[75] and [80]–[96] per Glazebrook J.
Mr Ratana was staying with his girlfriend in an area considered to be Black Power territory. The Crown alleged that Mr Kuru, the president of the Black Power chapter, had ordered, sanctioned or authorised a plan for members of the chapter to damage Mr Ratana’s property and to intimidate him, accompanied by firearms. The Crown did not allege that it was part of the plan to injure Mr Ratana or any other person.[2]
[2]See below at [26]–[27] of the majority’s reasons and [118]–[124] per Glazebrook J.
At trial, the Crown relied in part on the evidence of Detective Inspector Scott, whom the Crown called to give expert evidence on gang behaviour. Detective Inspector Scott’s evidence included the statements that the president “has the final authority over all chapter business and its members” and that, in his experience, “a (serious) organised gang crime against another gang would likely occur with the sanction of the president”. Detective Inspector Scott also gave general evidence on gangs, and on the Mongrel Mob and Black Power in particular. His professional experience was mostly in the Gisborne area.[3]
[3]For Detective Inspector Scott’s evidence generally see below at [31]–[35] of the majority’s reasons and [107]–[109] and [111]–[115] per Glazebrook J.
Mr Kuru appealed his conviction…

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.

Continue reading Kuru v The King

Details

AGLC: Kuru v The King [2024] NZSC 184
Case: [2024] NZSC 184
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Kuru v The King, the Supreme Court of New Zealand unanimously allowed an appeal against a conviction for manslaughter, set aside the conviction, and ordered that a judgment of acquittal be entered. The appellant, Mr Kuru, was convicted as a party to the manslaughter of Mr Ratana, a senior member of the Mongrel Mob. The central issue in the appeal was whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable, given the evidence presented at trial. The Court found that the verdict was indeed unreasonable due to the absence of direct evidence and the insufficiency of the remaining evidence. The Court further found that the admission of certain evidence given by Detective Inspector Scott, a police officer called as an expert witness on gang behaviour, caused a miscarriage of justice and rendered the verdict unreasonable. This evidence, which suggested that a serious gang crime would likely occur with the sanction of the gang president, was deemed inadmissible as it invited impermissible reasoning and failed to meet the criteria for admissibility under the Evidence Act 2006. The Court noted that this evidence was central to the Crown's case, and its erroneous admission significantly affected the outcome of the trial. Consequently, the Court concluded that no reasonable jury could have been satisfied of Mr Kuru’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the admissible evidence.

Orders