Lake Dive Hut pictured before the fire. Photo / Tamsen Walker, Department of Conservation
A man accused of burning down a popular hut on Mt Taranaki has been locked up for two years without a trial.
And the trial date that has been set down is still another three months out.
As a result of the "egregious delay", defence lawyer Kylie Pascoe has argued a stay of proceedings must be granted, which will end the prosecution against her client Daniel Banks.
The 16-bunk Lake Dive Hut on the mountain's southern slopes was a popular weekend overnight tramping destination and part of the multi-day Around the Mountain Circuit.
He faces five charges of wilful trespass, and one each of arson, disorderly behaviour and speaking threateningly.
On Friday, he appeared in New Plymouth District Court via audio-visual link from prison custody to hear Pascoe argue the application for a stay of proceedings.
Before Judge Tony Greig, she told the court that Banks' first appearance on the matter was on October 2, 2020, and the earliest judge-alone trial date was allocated for February 9, 2022.
Two pre-trial matters preceded that date, including an unsuccessful application to dismiss the charges, and then the judge who heard that application recused himself from further dealing with the matter.
That meant the trial was put off and a new date before a new judge has now been set for December.
Pascoe, Banks' third lawyer assigned to the case, said the delay was not due to the actions of defence or prosecution.
She said there has been a limitation on court resources but only in part by the implications of Covid-19.
"There is no doubt that the Covid-19 lockdown and protocols have resulted in there being some delay and pressure in the allocation of judicial time but I don't believe that answers fully how we can have an individual in custody from October 2020 with no date allocated until February 2022.
"When you have an individual in custody that requires, with regards to the allocation of judicial resources, triaging, a prioritising of those individuals."
The delay was simply "unacceptable", she said.
Even if Banks did go to trial, Pascoe argued there was an unlikely chance he would be convicted and he has already served a substantial term of imprisonment – so far equating to a four-year sentence.
She submitted the alleged arson was reckless, not wilful, and it would not come close to a four-year start point.
Pascoe argued the evidence against Banks was "thin" and that the origin of the fire could not be identified.
The Supreme Court has previously held that while the seriousness of an offence is not usually relevant to the nature of the remedy, if the offending is towards the lower end of the scale that may be sufficient to tip the balance in favour of a stay, she submitted.
"I think the strength of the evidence is something that your honour is permitted to consider at this juncture".
Crown prosecutor Jacob Bourke said the strength of the evidence was relevant to a degree but it wasn't a dominant factor.
He accepted the alleged arson was not wilful but said that needed to be balanced with the extent of loss and other aggravating factors, stating a four-year start point could be met.
Bourke agreed the delay in the case was not the fault of the prosecution or defence and rather the court "hasn't found the time".