A tradie accused of defrauding 28 people of $87,000 for failing to complete work he’d promoted on social media wants to have his charges thrown because the courts can’t find a date for his trial.

Jason Mark Lambert argued, through counsel Kerry Hadaway, that the longer the court took to allocate three weeks for a judge-alone trial, the further it caused his trial prejudice due to the memory degradation of witnesses and himself.

Hadaway labelled memory degradation a “real risk” given the alleged offending, which involved 31 charges, was said to have occurred between three and six years ago, between October 2018 and July 2021.

“A three-year delay, that’s an egregious, system delay,” she told Judge Kim Saunders at a hearing in the Hamilton District Court this month.

“It’s his right to be tried without undue delay.”

The allegations revolve around Lambert placing advertisements on Facebook Marketplace and various buy/sell pages offering concreting, landscaping, decking, and digger/bobcat services through his businesses, Jrok Earthworks and Concreting, JL Earthworks & Concrete Ltd and multiple other Facebook profile names.

The complainants live in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato, including Hamilton, Huntly, Te Awamutu, Kihikihi, Ngaruawahia, and Tauranga.

Lambert is alleged to have agreed to specific work and deposits paid by the victims but the work was not completed.

There’s also a charge relating to dishonestly deceiving a hire company that provided machinery and equipment to him.

Hadaway’s application for a stay of proceedings was based on grounds there was a system delay in the court system breaching Lambert’s trial rights.

He first appeared in court on May 23, 2021, before a series of hearings including a case review in May 2022.

At his first nominal judge-alone trial callover in July last year, no hearing time was available and that has continued since.

Judge Saunders advised the court no judge was available to hear the case this year and there was no indication when, if at all, it could be heard next year, which was why she heard Lambert’s application.

Hadaway submitted there was a prejudice to her client who “is not being able to move on in his life”.

“These [charges] have been hanging over his head for three years and likely the foreseeable future ... without being able to clear his name.

“His name has been out there in the media,” she said.

The case involved allegations that at the time “might have been quite ordinary and not imprinted in people’s memories”.

She submitted the amounts allegedly lost by the complainants weren’t “particularly substantial” and they could have recourse through the Disputes Tribunal or civil litigation.

‘It’s their right to lay a complaint’

However, police prosecutor Sergeant Stephen Hickey said Lambert’s right to a fair trial wasn’t compromised by memory degradation as all the statements had already been prepared.

There was no outstanding disclosure and it was simply a matter of getting a trial date.

He acknowledged the system delay but said it was also exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the “significant” public interest, and number of complainants, meant the matter should proceed to trial.

“The complainants are in the same position as the defendant. They have had this hanging over them and they want their time in court to be heard.

“It’s their right to lay a complaint.”

As for memory degradation, Hickey said, Lambert had been aware of the charges since 2021 and he hoped he had business records ready to use for his defence.

‘There’s a significant public interest’

In her reserve decision released today, Judge Saunders said the length allocated to Lambert’s trial had proven “challenging” for the Ministry of Justice to find appropriate resources.

She said no fault lay with either the prosecution or the defence and the delay was simply due to three weeks being needed due to the large number of witnesses.

“There is no demonstrable prejudice to Mr Lambert beyond that suggested of memory degradation ... [but] there is also a paper trail that no delay will compromise.

“There is significant public interest in having this matter heard.”

It was for those reasons she found the delay was “not yet plainly excessive and so egregious as to justify a stay of proceedings”.

“A governmental failure to allocate adequate resources does not of itself excuse a clear breach of the right to be heard without undue delay, but in this case the Government is conscious of the problem and taking steps to deal with it, albeit at a somewhat slower pace than ideal.”