Black Power boss takes fight to Supreme Court
A Whanganui gang leader who spent more than three years in prison for the manslaughter of a Mongrel Mob member still denies any wrongdoing.
Damien Shane Kuru is appealing his conviction in the Supreme Court for the killing of Kevin “Kastro” Ratana, claiming expert testimony from a police witness was prejudicial and not enough for a jury to find him guilty.
Ratana, who was 27 at the time, died in Castlecliff on August 21, 2018.
He was staying with his partner in an area known as Black Power territory, and despite previous run-ins with the opposing gang, he had not left town.
The court heard that on the morning of the fatal incident, a number of Black Power members gathered on Matipo St, near Kuru’s home and that of another gang member.
Three carloads went to the home of Ratana’s partner on Puriri St, making threats. Some attacked his car, and Ratana appeared outside with a firearm. A shot was fired from the Black Power side, and he died on the spot.
Kuru was found guilty of being party to manslaughter, and sentenced to five years and two months’ jail. The Crown did not have any direct evidence linking Kuru to the shooting, and relied on testimony from Detective Inspector Craig Scott to “fill the gap”.
Scott told the jury how gangs operated in New Zealand, but did not specifically refer to Kuru or his chapter.
A Court of Appeal judgment from May 2023 dismissed Kuru’s appeal, but, in a dissenting decision, one member of the threejudge court said the conviction was unsafe.
At a hearing in Wellington on Monday, defence lawyer Christopher Stevenson and Crown prosecutor Fergus Sinclair were rigorously questioned by the five-judge panel.
Much of it traversed the officer’s evidence, particularly whether he told the jury it would be unlikely that an incident would happen without a gang president’s knowledge. Scott drew on experience working with different chapters in Gisborne, and some of the statements he made were generalisations.
Kuru’s appeal alleged that his testimony was prejudicial. Stevenson said the view that Kuru had inherent power over others as president did not prove he knew anything about a common plan involving Ratana. There was also no direct evidence to say he took part in the fatal incident, and he had not gathered with those who were on the street that morning.
“He hadn’t been told, he wasn’t involved, and he didn’t know.”
Stevenson said Kuru was heading to an appointment at his son’s school at the time, which was confirmed by staff. He also held a meeting on the morning of August 22 to try to find out who was responsible for the shooting.
Kuru, who was seated in the public gallery for the hearing, reluctantly became president because of “familial” ties, he said. He was not the “stereotypical” leader, as suggested by Scott, but was instead a “pro-social” man helping young men overcome issues with violence.
But Sinclair rejected this, and said Kuru was near the scene because he “knew” something was going to happen. “His reason for being there ... doesn’t stack up.”
There were previous incidents of intimidation towards Ratana, and Kuru’s sergeant at arms was involved. Their relationship was “key”, he said. The two were seen passing one another after the shooting, ending up “just metres apart”, but there was no interaction.
Sinclair said there was an “air of nonchalance about Kuru”, and he wanted to “maintain separation” from those involved.
“It’s a reasonable inference there has been an understanding the [sergeant at arms] will round up some members and deliver a very forceful message accompanied by violence.”
Sinclair said Kuru “must have been on the move close behind them for all of this to fit into sequence”.
He said the officer had the relevant training and experience to be an expert at trial, and the jury was aware that some statements he made were generalisations. The trial judge had directed them to think carefully about those. The panel reserved its decision.