A Te Puna family have admitted they are 'disillusioned” with New Zealand's justice system and have been left 'stunned” after a man convicted of leading a brutal attack at their home walked free.

Three car-loads of people carrying sticks and garden tools attacked the Duncan's family home on November 23, 2012.

Jack Simon Ake was originally sentenced to four years and nine months in prison, before the decision was overturned. Photos: File.

Evidence given at the subsequent trial alleged that three people attacked householder Andrew Duncan with a spade, a bat, and a length of pipe in an unprovoked attack.

The attack was stopped when Andrew's son Kevin, who was 21-years-old at the time, began firing warning shots from a shotgun into the air.

Some seven shots were fired before the attackers fled the property, and four people were taken to Tauranga Hospital by St John Ambulance following the attack.

Jack Simon Ake, 52, was clearly and unequivocally identified by the Duncans as being the person using a spade to hit Andrew Duncan.

However, because two Crown witnesses clearly pointed at Ake in the dock as being the person responsible, it tripped a legal situation requiring the judge to warn the jury about the nature of such identifications.

Following the jury trial in August 2014, Ake was convicted on charges of wounding with intent to injure and assault with a weapon. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years and nine months.

Co-accused Jasmine Borrell and Derek Michael Drewry were also sentenced to six months in jail and ordered to pay reparation of $6521.

Co-accused Jasmine Borrell was sentenced to six months behind bars.

However, the Court of Appeal said the Judge's summing-up did not explain to the jury the process of identification either in Court during the trial or during the investigation.

Neither did the Judge give properly-tailored direction by providing an appropriate warning in terms of the Evidence Act and dock identifications.

Because there were two unintended dock identifications, the Judge's failure to warn the jury about the dangers of relying on such evidence was significant and caused prejudice to Mr Ake's defence.

The omissions comprise legal errors that, in the circumstances, constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The tribunal stated: 'We are satisfied the state of the evidence presented at the hearing on the question of the identity of Mr Ake was so unsatisfactory that no jury properly directed would have convicted him.

'This is not a case where the prosecution should be given another chance to cure the evidential deficiencies in the case against Mr Ake. For these reasons we consider it is not in the interests of justice to direct a new trial.”

Speaking from his Te Puna home following the tribunal's decision, Andrew says: 'From our perspective, this acquittal is a bitter disappointment that reinforces all of the frequently heard comments about how well our justice system is slanted to suit the criminal.

'It's as if living an honest life is naive stupidity - you may as well be a criminal. There's not much chance of being caught and if you are, not much is going to happen to you.”

The night the Duncans were attacked, there were up to 20 people on the property either involved in, intent on, or assisting in armed violence, explains Andrew. Of that number, only four were charged and three convicted.

'Two of these served just three months jail time which, relative to what they did and tried to do, was pitiful,” says Andrew.

'Now, the only one who got anything near what he deserved has been released on a technicality. That defies belief.”

Having studied the Court of Appeal judgement, he says no matter how many times he reads it, the lack of logic, common sense and justice leaves him 'stunned”.

Derek Michael Drewry was also sentenced to six months in prison and ordered to pay reparation.

'I had always believed identifying criminals was part of the court process,” says Andrew.

'We were aware that an appeal was coming up, but believed there was no way it could possibly succeed given the amount of evidence against that person and our personal knowledge of what he did that night.

'The trial judge did a thorough and fair job with his instructions to the jury, and the defence counsel did not challenge this supposed identification issue at the time.”

He insists that the jury was a diverse and fair representation of the community.

'They quickly came to a very convincing verdict on the fourth day of the trial,” says Andrew.

'The granting of this appeal is an absolute insult to the jury who gave up several days of their lives to do their part in supporting our justice system and show their support for the principles of law and order.

'I'm sure this result is equally frustrating and disappointing to the police officers involved in the case.

'Their efforts were restricted by budget in some areas, whereas the publicly-funded legal aid given to those charged appears to have no bounds and extends equally generously to defence appeals.

'I still believe in the basic principles of our justice system, but some aspects certainly need to change.

'The rights of criminals should not outweigh the rights of honest people and the defence system should not be able to manipulate facts and the words of judges to elevate criminal rights even further.

'It is easy to see why people become disillusioned with the legal system and take the law into their own hands.

'Of all the people that came onto our property that night, some we know of, a lot we don't, but there will be plenty of families who do know they had members involved.

'If those individuals do not face any consequences then their families and friends who know what they did must carry the shame of adding to this county's growing population of violent criminals.

'I guess all we can hope for is that their conscience haunts them – if they've got one – and natural justice catches up with them at some point in their lives.”