Mongrel Mob gang members found guilty of murder of Mitchell Te Kani, some guilty of manslaughter

However, three were found not guilty of causing his death, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on one accused.

The nine accused were Kevin Allan Bailey and Shem Williams, both of Gate Pā; Mihaka Ratahi from Papamoa; Kiri Mereina Pini and Bodine Umuroa from Parkvale; Hamiora Bennett of Brookfield; Hunter Yahwaun Te Ari Lane; and Witayawa Robinson and Samuel Mark Milosi from Tauranga.

Charges against Rotorua’s Jamie Robin Thomas were dropped earlier in the trial.

Verdicts

Umuroa was guilty of six counts, including manslaughter, as was Pini.

Bailey was guilty of assault but found not guilty of manslaughter along with Williams. However, Williams was found guilty of two more charges of obstruction of justice.

Bennett was also found guilty of four assault charges, but the jury returned a guilty verdict on a charge of manslaughter.

Lane was found guilty of four charges of assault and manslaughter along with Robinson and Ratahi, but Ratahi was also found guilty of his additional attempt to pervert the course of justice.

The jury failed to reach a decision on Milosi’s assault-related charges, with four verdicts returned and he was found not guilty of manslaughter.

What’s happened?

Te Kani, 51, died outside his parents’ home late on Saturday, May 14, 2022, in what the Crown alleges was a retaliatory gang attack after accused and stamped member Bodine Umuroa was beaten by the Mitchell gang. brother Thomas on the Maungatapu Road access road.

Umuroa and his then partner and fellow accused Kiri Pini turned up at a previously undisclosed address in an attempt to grab some of her clothes and also in search of Thomas.

Pini and Thomas were in a long-term relationship and had two children together before they split in 2017.

Pini met Umuroa several months before Mitchell was killed.

The Crown alleged that on the night the pair turned up, Umuroa acted aggressively; he admitted a charge of threatening to cause grievous bodily harm to Thomas, saying he would “waste it”.

As the couple left, Thomas and his relative Wetu Hika got into a fight with Umuroa. Thomas overpowered him and then walked him to his car.

Umuroa was heard saying as he left that he would be back with “Rogues”, which is exactly what happened.

Witnesses reported seeing 20 to 30 gang members in five different cars.

— Humiliated and angry or just putting on a show?

Judge Becroft said it could be inferred from the Crown’s case that Umuroa left feeling humiliated and angry after being treated by Thomas, and that he returned to Ohauiti Road, where a large number of mongrel gang members were drinking, and confronted “a call for help.”

In their statements, Ratahi and Williams appeared to accept this call for help “in a general sense”, but this did not mean that the other defendants accepted it.

The case rested on how the charges were brought – jointly or jointly – and that they were all part of a “common unlawful purpose”.

In this case, the Crown did not have to prove who struck or killed Mitchell, but to perform a number of other actions. The killer may not have even been in the dock as the Crown did not need to provide identification.

They are all responsible under the Crimes Act for the actions or actions of the person or persons who committed the alleged attack.

To obtain a conviction, the Crown had to successfully prove many aspects, including that there was a “common consent of one or more of the accused”, that there was a common unlawful purpose, that one or more agreed to assist each other, and that they passed on the property.

The Crown also had to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offense or knew that the offense was a “likely consequence.”

Additionally, when considering a murder charge, the jury had to be confident that the defendant entered the property knowing that at least some of the group members were carrying weapons, and that they had either the intent or the “reckless intent” to kill someone .

If they concluded that only bottles were brought to the scene, they had to decide whether to simply finish them or deliberately use them as weapons.

To reach their verdict, the jury had to use inferences that were inferences from the facts they believed to be true.

“This is not a guess, this is not speculation. Whether you reach that conclusion on a particular issue is for you to decide,” Judge Becroft said.

He also touched on gang issues and stripes that were on display during the trial; when the Crown presented a gang patch on a mannequin.

“The issue of patches is very relevant at the moment. “You may have strong feelings about gangs, as I said at the start of the trial, however you feel about gangs, they are a fact of life in New Zealand.”

But Umuroa’s lawyer Tony Rickard-Simms said his client and the rest of the group were on the property to “put on a show” and intimidate Te Kani whanau, but told the jury they couldn’t be sure Umuroa believed anything. other than “trivial harm”.

As for Pini, attorney Scott Mills said she was portrayed as the “Wicked Witch of the West” when she was simply “Dorothy caught in a tornado” over which she had no control.

He blamed the attacks and Mitchell’s death on a gang of mongrels.

With the exception of Hamiora Bennett, all the accused agreed to be on Te Kani property that night.

Lane and Robinson, through their lawyers, suggested a verdict of manslaughter, while the others said there was insufficient evidence of manslaughter or manslaughter.

Defendants

Belinda Fick is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She worked at NZME for nine years and worked as a journalist for 20 years.