Tribal Huk gang leader Jamie Pink's appeal against conviction denied

Jamie Pink in the Hamilton District Court for sentencing in December 2020 over an axe attack on a gang member two years earlier. Photo / Christine Cornege

A Waikato gang leader jailed for a violent axe attack on his sergeant at arms in a public de-patching has had his appeal against his conviction and sentence denied.

Allan James Pink, known as Jamie Pink, was sentenced in December 2020 to seven years and four months in prison for the brazen attack, which happened on Ngaruawahia's main street in view of a crowd of locals.

The Tribal Huk leader was found guilty at trial of one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm but was found not guilty of participating in a criminal group.

The charge came about after Pink ordered his gang members to search for his sergeant at arms, Zion Coker.

He was eventually spotted in his car on Ngaruawahia's main street and a group of 10 set upon him.

Pink turned up with an axe and smashed it several times into Coker's knees as he lay curled up in a ball on the footpath.

Coker suffered serious injuries to his knees, as well as a broken thumb.

The incident in August 2018 was seen by many locals, most of whom were too scared to testify against Pink.

However, two women and a truck driver eventually did and it was their testimony which convinced a jury Pink was involved.

Pink denied joining in the attack, saying he went to the scene to stop the violence and even took the axe off one of the members of the group.

Pink's lawyer Nicholas Chisnall said the judge did not give an adequate warning to the jury about the possibility of misidentification.

Under section 126 of the Evidence Act, if a case against a defendant in a jury trial depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more visual or voice identifications of the defendant or any other person, the judge must warn the jury of the special need for caution before finding the defendant guilty while relying on the correctness of that identification.

Today, the judge ruled the jury was sufficiently alerted that even if the mother and daughter were convincing, there was "still the possibility of mistake", and that there was "also a possibility that both of them were mistaken".

The judge's omission of the phrase "serious miscarriage of justice" did not mean the judge failed to comply with the law.

It was found that what was conveyed was that the jury needed to exercise special care when relying on identification evidence, that mistakes can be made with identification and that mistakes have led to wrongful convictions.

Co-counsel Luke Elborough said the Crown accused Pink of lying and made it the central plank of its case, pointing to times Pink had lied to police in the past.

He said the judge should have made a direction to the jury under section 124 of the Evidence Act that if they believed he lied previously, they should not necessarily conclude he was guilty of the current offence.

The court of appeal found that in two out of court statements made by Pink to police, there were inconsistencies between those statements as well as between those statements and the evidence he gave in court.

Despite the fact evidence was offered to suggest Pink had lied there is no requirement to give a lie direction unless the judge is under the impression it would interfere with true justice.

Pink and his legal team also said they believe his conviction was "manifestly excessive".

However, upon review, his sentence of seven years and four months was justified.

This was because this was not a single blow with a weapon but one of repeated blows with undoubtedly serious injuries resulting, contrary to Pink's arguments.