Prosecutor Steve Hickey submitted that Lambert accepted the work and the money, without any intention of finishing the job.
That, he said, pointed to a dishonest intent.
But Lambert’s defence counsel pairing of Kerry Hadaway and Jonathon Myers said their client always had a genuine intention to do the work, entered contracts in good faith, and he kept up communications with those involved.
They claimed the case was nothing more than a civil dispute.
After hearing about three weeks’ of evidence, Judge Saunders recently released her reserved decision on the remaining charges.
She cleared Lambert of 13 charges but found him guilty of five charges, relating to a $5025 deception, in which she determined he had a reckless intent to deceive.
On three of those occasions, Lambert did no work at all, and two other times he failed to complete the work.
‘An incompetent businessman with good intentions’
Judge Saunders said there was unchallenged evidence throughout the hearing that Lambert was skilled in concreting, with many complainants confirming he seemed to know what he was doing.
As for some of his excuses for the delays, which reminded her of the axiomatic “cheque is in the mail” to delay creditors, they did not of themselves indicate guilt.
“So, in a case such as this, where I am asked to draw inferences of guilt, I must guard against speculation.
“Not turning up as promised and providing multiple excuses for not doing so is not enough.”
She also took into account that Lambert used his real identity, despite using fake IRD and GST numbers, her overall sense was that it did not reflect a premeditated plan to deceive.
Jason Mark Lambert pictured in the Hamilton District Court in August. Photo / Belinda Feek
“There may be other reasons, including inept business practices,” she said.
There was also Covid-19 to take into account, “when everything became harder”.
However, she also took a jibe at the prosecution’s case.
“What has frustrated me as this hearing progressed is the lack of [arguably available] evidence that raised more questions than answers.
“There was no financial analysis of the relevant bank accounts into which the complainant’s deposits were made.
“What happened to that money? I simply do not know.”
Police identified four bank accounts into which deposits were made, but didn’t find one in Lambert’s name.
Two had the same last name; one as DP and CE Lambert, the other DP Lambert.
He also used seven different names, none of which were in the companies register, nor did police find any record of Lambert being a director of a company in New Zealand.
She also didn’t know the objective value of the work Lambert had completed, nor what else was required to finish it, and at what cost.
“If I cannot quantify the value and extent of the work completed by Mr Lambert in each case, how can I conclude it was part of an elaborate ruse on his part and he never intended to complete the job.
“An alternative explanation is Mr Lambert is simply an incompetent businessman with good intentions who floundered.
“The sheer number of complainants may raise suspicion but not proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Lambert will be sentenced on his 13 total charges on November 28.
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 10 years and has been a journalist for 21.