Red shirt story doesn't wash

Dusty Marsters-Pomana is free after the collapse of charges alleging he attacked a boy for wearing a shirt in the colour of a rival gang. Photo / Christine Cornege

A man who claimed his 4-year-old son was assaulted for wearing a red shirt associated with a rival gang may have concocted an elaborate lie, a court has heard.

Two assault charges were dropped against Dusty Ngaio Marsters-Pomana, 21, in Whakatane District Court yesterday.

Judge Louis Bidois said statements by the preschooler's father, Douglas Ihe, were too inconsistent to reliably identify Mr Marsters-Pomana as the alleged attacker.

Defence counsel Gene Tomlinson went further, suggesting to Mr Ihe in the witness stand that he had made the entire incident up. "None of this really happened, did it?" said Mr Tomlinson during cross-examination.

Outside court, Mr Marsters-Pomana was elated. He told the Weekend Herald that he had felt "dreadful" having his family name associated with an attack on a child.

He said his parents had all but disowned him, and only two family members, his grandmother and cousin, had come to support him in the dock.

Mr Ihe was the only witness to the May 6 attack in Cutler Crescent Reserve. He alleged that when his back was turned his son Cody had been berated by a blue-clad gang member and had his red shirt torn off because it was the colour associated with the Mongrel Mob.

Whakatane is considered the territory of fierce rival Black Power, which is associated with blue clothing.

The court heard that Mr Ihe had responded to the attack on his child by punching the assailant in the face, knocking him out.

Concerned that he would be prosecuted for assault, he only made a complaint to police under pressure from his wife and family.

In the statement, he did not name Mr Marsters-Pomana as the assailant, despite knowing him from time spent together in a Destiny Church youth group five years earlier.

Mr Ihe identified Mr Marsters-Pomana as the blue-clad attacker in a second statement a week later.

The defence counsel accused him of falsely picking a scapegoat. Mr Tomlinson contended that Mr Ihe had got drunk on the afternoon of the attack with his friends, and had made up the incident to appease his wife.

Mr Ihe firmly denied this. He gave a detailed description of the scuffle and said he was "100 per cent positive" Mr Marsters-Pomana was responsible.

Police did not proceed with a formal identification process because Mr Ihe had recognised the attacker.

The court also heard that Mr Ihe had spent time with Mr Marsters-Pomana later in the day, drinking and play-wrestling with him at a friend's house.

Mr Marsters-Pomana said it had always been a case of mistaken identity. He provided evidence showing he was drinking at a friend's house at the time of the attack.

He even told the court he considered wearing red yesterday to show he had no problem with the colour. Family talked him out of the idea.

Judge Bidois said inconsistencies in Mr Ihe's accounts of the incident meant the case could not proceed against Mr Marsters-Pomana.

"There are huge issues of reliability related to the witness' evidence. He lied on [a statement], there are aspects of his evidence that did not stand up, he did not reveal he had wrestled with defendant that night ... Both charges are dismissed."

Mr Ihe left court before the decision was reached. He said his child Cody had been "all right" since the incident.

Mr Marsters-Pomana said the shame he suffered from the charges had led him to try and turn his life around, and end his informal support for Black Power. "Police have my blue-coloured shirts - they can keep them."