Kuru was charged with Ratana’s murder but following a six-week trial in the High Court at Wellington in 2021, a jury found him guilty of manslaughter.
The case relied heavily on police gang expert Detective Inspector Craig Scott’s testimony that he expected the killing could have only been carried out under the orders of the gang president.
Kuru was sentenced by Justice Rebecca Ellis to five years and two months’ imprisonment at a hearing in the High Court at Whanganui in February last year, but he later challenged the conviction in the Court of Appeal.
In October 2022, Kuru outlined three grounds for his appeal including his claim that Scott’s testimony created a potential unfair prejudice that should have prevented it from being put before a jury.
Kuru argued he took no part in planning the attack, didn’t sanction it, and wasn’t at the scene when it was carried out so there wasn’t enough evidence for a jury to convict him.
Justices David Collins, Matthew Muir, and Helen Cull reserved their decision, which was delivered on Friday, and dismissed Kuru’s appeal.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Collins, found the conviction was not unreasonable and while there was no direct evidence Kuru took part in planning the “rumble”, “there was circumstantial evidence that he knew of and supported the plan”.
“It was for the jury to assess the circumstantial evidence.
“As we have emphasised, it is not our role to substitute our view of the evidence for that of the jury provided there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have reasonably convicted Mr Kuru.”
Justice Cull however did not agree the jury’s verdict was reasonable.
“I consider there was insufficient evidence for the jury to have been satisfied to the criminal standard that Mr Kuru was guilty of manslaughter under The Crimes Act,” she said.
Justice Cull said the lack of probative evidence combined with the expert evidence, that Kuru likely knew what was planned, “led the jury into impermissible reasoning and an unreasonable verdict resulting in an unsafe conviction”.
The justices concluded Scott should not have been “disqualified from giving expert evidence” at the trial simply because he was a police officer and noted his evidence was not challenged during the hearing.
“He has extensive experience in this area of police investigation.”
Justice Collins said Scott’s evidence, which had been deemed admissible, was relevant to an issue in the trial and determined it was likely to be substantially helpful to the jury who were unlikely to have been familiar with gang structures and culture in New Zealand.
If Scott’s ability to comment about the structures and culture of the Whanganui Black Power had been raised at trial it might have been different, he said.
“We agree, however, with the findings of the trial judge that the evidence was admissible despite some prejudice arising.”
Justice Collins said they were also satisfied no miscarriage of justice arose through the directions, given by the trial judge, to the jury.
In an explanation of her view Justice Cull said the strands of circumstantial evidence, when taken together, lacked probative value to reach the required standard to convict Kuru.
“Each strand does not have to be proved to the highest standard, but the overall strength of the combined strands together must satisfy the criminal standard.”
Justice Cull said she considered the jury could not have reasonably been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt Mr Kuru was guilty.
“For these reasons, I find the jury verdict was unreasonable and the conviction is unsafe.”
Kuru’s lawyer Jamie Waugh told NZME a further appeal to the Supreme Court was now being considered.
