escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Tamati Kohey

Tamati Hemi Kohey

Alias

.

Offences

Home invasion, robbery, abduction and threatening to kill two Christchurch women in July 2002

Victims

.

Offender Affiliations

Bevan Carroll
Rawiri Mita
Johnny Gosling

Gang affiliations

Mongrel Mob

Age

Born 1986

Current Location

Currently at large

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to 6 years 6 months with a 4 year non-parole period in September 2002
Successfully reduced to just 3 years on appeal in March 2003

Background
Court of Appeal decision here (PDF)
From the Christchurch Press 11th April 2003
Shouting obscenities at a judge, Bevan James Carroll was dragged out of the High Court in Christchurch to begin his sentence of preventive detention for a vicious home invasion. Earlier, the complainants, Janelle Manuel and Cabalene Kihi- Thoms, read from their own victim impact reports, in what is thought to be a New Zealand first under new victims' rights legislation.

Regarded as the ringleader, Carroll, 31, was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum non-parole period of 7 1/2 years by Justice Panckhurst. He had admitted burglary, two counts each of robbery and kidnapping, threatening to kill, car conversion, and criminal damage. "In my view, this offending is about as bad as it gets in relation to home invasion, save for the redeeming factor that no actual harm was done to the victims," His Honour said. "Their lives have effectively been turned upside-down as a result of what happened to them on the night."

Two other offenders, Rawiri Charles Mita, 19, and Johnny Jim Gosling, 17, who both admitted two counts of kidnapping and two of aggravated robbery, were jailed for four years. Both women and a baby had been asleep in their Woolston home at 3.30am on July 4. One answered the door to be confronted by Gosling and a youth offender who has been dealt with separately. Carroll, armed with a knife, had then forced his way in. Threats to the two women's lives were made and they were guarded at knifepoint while the house was ransacked.

Property was removed using one complainant's car, which was later torched. Goods worth about $12,000 and $1500 in cash were stolen, and $800 from an ATM was taken. Counsel for Carroll, Stan Barker, said he had made good use of previous prison sentences for rehabilitation, and had an insight into his destructive elements. Margaret Sewell, for Gosling, said he had the "greatest sympathy" for the victims, and had not realised what he was getting into. For Mita, Rupert Glover said that after hearing the victims speak, he understood what his role must have meant to them.

Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway described the incident as "very serious offending in particularly pernicious circumstances" and said preventive detention was required for Carroll because he posed too great a public risk to be dealt with by a finite sentence. Justice Panckhurst said an unusual feature of the case was that the two younger men were facing serious charges effectively as first offenders and it may be that, had they not been influenced by Carroll, they may never have got involved. The jail term of four years for both reflected a full allowance for guilty pleas, their lesser roles, and that both were young with no previous convictions.

As for Carroll, the judge said he had no doubt he "called the shots", with the younger offenders doing as they were told. He had an extensive list running to eight pages of printout which included numerous burglaries and assaults, and three for robbery. It appeared he had had a deprived upbringing, which the judge said he had every sympathy for, but in passing sentence he had to confront the person Carroll was, and the risk he posed to the community. Carroll had shown no remorse as the victims addressed the court, and it was particularly aggravating he had involved the three younger men. His past offending "gave every reason for pessimism", His Honour said.

---

Corrections and Additional Information
We endeavour to make this database as accurate as possible, but we are at the mercy of whatever information we can find in various online and offline archives. We rely on the public - that is, people like you - to fill in the gaps that we cannot. If you wish to submit additional information or a correction to this file CLICK HERE . Privacy: Trust policy is that all sources are treated as strictly confidential unless we are explicitly told otherwise. If you wish to see a file removed from this database certain conditions must be met by the offender set out HERE Note that this does NOT apply for those that are the primary offender in a murder, rape, or any sexual offending involving minors. We do not enter into correspondence regarding the guilt/innocence of offenders. Such correspondence is not responded to, especially if the offender concerned has a number of prior convictions

Back to Top