Scott Watson, one of the worst Judicial Failures in New Zealand
Furthermore, the hidden material now
revealed is destructive to the entire police inquiry and prosecution. To
overcome future Miscarriages of Justice, the Courts must be unforgiving as to
even minor malfeasance that sees evidence lost or altered, and encourage
inquiries and prosecutions into even the smallest transgressions. New Zealand
has seen at least over150 years of false imprisonment in just a few of the
current or recently resolved cases. Perhaps the Maney case being the most
obvious and blatant. There is also blatant malfeasance abroad in the Watson
case from the outset. That estimated 150
years of relatively recent false imprisonment does not record the 150 odd years
to the 1950s where innocent prisoners were hanged. One example being Mokomoko.
And arguably the very young Te Whiu, and John Bolton in which it was found post-mortem
the farm well had heightened levels of arsenic as he did himself.
[875] Contrary
to the defence submission at trial that it was equivocal, we consider the
evidence of the drop-off location did undermine the plausibility of the defence
theory that the lone man’s boat was a ketch. The yacht, on Mr Wallace’s
evidence as the driver of the Naiad, was in a raft of three to five boats in
the vicinity of the Spirit of Marlborough, which was large and distinctive.
Behind the lone man’s boat was what Mr Wallace called a “gin palace launch”, a
“great big [boat] like a Markline”. That description appears consistent with
the Naiad approaching Blade and seeing the Kaela Rose behind it.273 Mr
Wallace’s evidence as to the drop-off location was corroborated by the evidence
of Hayden Morresey and Sarah Dyer as to the direction the Naiad travelled when
it left the Tamarack.
The difficulty with the above logic, is
that Hayden and Sarah did not identify Mr Watson as the mystery man.
[876] That
drop-off location responds to the ketch theory because, based on our review of
the evidence, nobody other than Mr Wallace and Mr Morresey said they saw a
ketch in that area. It was a matter for the jury to consider the likelihood
that a ketch could have come into that location, been rafted to another boat or
anchored on its own for the time the lone man was at Furneaux Lodge, then left
without being seen. 273 See the photograph at [846] above.
This is also wrong. There are many
consistent sightings of the ketch in that area.
[877] We repeat
that Mr Perkins and Ms Egden said Mr Watson told them that night that he had a
ketch.274 There is no doubt Mr Perkins and Ms Egden were referring to Mr Watson
because they were involved in and witnessed respectively the Perkins incident, which
Mr Watson admitted he was involved in.275 Mr Perkins’ evidence that Mr Watson
told him he had a “double masted ketch” was not challenged in
cross-examination. Although Amanda Egden was challenged about her evidence,
there was no suggestion the man who made the comment was different from the man
she had otherwise encountered and who we know was Mr Watson. Those
consistencies also apply to Ms MacFarlane. It would be a remarkable coincidence
if somebody who was described using the same descriptors as were used to
describe Mr Watson (scruffy, shaggy hair, stubble) was also at Furneaux Lodge
and also suggesting he had a ketch, describing it as “the only double masted
yacht out in the bay”.
There are now suggestions of whom the man
was at the pool table, and he in fact did have a “double masted” ketch.
The Court appears not to have considered
the “new” information regarding the Ketch the Toroa and the likeness of its
skipper to an older version of Mr Watson, including tattoos. Mr Watson had no
reason to claim he had a Ketch, but the Toroa owner did. One might consider the
uncontested fact that Olivia flatly refused to go aboard the hire craft, and if
expecting to be going to a ketch, why she would silently and suddenly passively
accept a berth on a much smaller boat. It is clear from other evidence that the
photo file has been tampered with, photos removed and so on. The time stamp may
not be correct either, but the accepted evidence of Olivia’s rejection of going
aboard the Tamarack and instead preferring a smaller boat in a raft up tests
the Court’s credibility. The Court, for all its work on the file, overlooked,
or did not consider the file was doctored, which factually is the case.
There was absolutely no evidence from
persons in the “raft up,” that support the Crown’s case, it was ludicrous proposition
to accept without single witness in support.
There is little doubt that from the 4
numbered paras directly above 874 through 877, the Court with the full gambit
of evidence now available around Queen Charlotte Sound would have had to accept
the file evidence and the new evidence that supports ketch sightings. Because
at this point in the Judgement the Court is establishing its reasons to dismiss
Mr Watson’s appeal both new and old evidence combined (including the evidence
it did not see) would have needed the narrative to be interrupted with highly
pertinent material that remains unknown to it. In fact a steady stream of
material reporting the ketch’s arrival at Furneaux, anchoring, leaving there. Henceforth,
the decision by Mr Pope to abandon the ketch search and focus the attention on a
much smaller boat could be seen at the least as unfortunate, or at its
unfortunate best for Mr Watson to echo Mr Pope’s verbalised thoughts regarding
Mr Watson being of the right pedigree. Mr Watson did not conjure up the
witnesses that help his case for innocence, it was not Mr Watson that deleted
material from 2 statements helpful to him about this very matter. He had no
control over that. It was not him that called for all sightings of ketches to
be disregarded and for that to be publicised. A prudent investigator would have
kept on track with both options and leave “gut instinct” or “prejudice” aside.
Resulting from that would have seen the police investigation enlarge at Mapua,
where another witness recalls for the Court, speaking to those aboard the Ketch
at Mapua and soon after contacting police who would eventually investigate and
lead to the confusion between the MK and the Ses Walker in another mishap in this
case.
Writing of this, on this day the 5th of
October 2025, echoes a call by one woman to police to see her statements years
after it was made only find it altered, and another to receive her statement
after roughly the same passage of time and find it had also had been altered.
Earlier there was a suggestion of a doctored file, one of these revelations was
time present when the couple were alive, the other simply to close another door
on unpalatable evidence for the Crown on its mission to convict Mr Watson and stifle,
or rid itself of evidence exculpating him. That hasn’t been successful, but
arguably now it can be fully presented to the Supreme Court for the Judiciary
to look into itself and the role it has played in this false conviction. There
has somewhat been a battle of experts that would not have been required to the
same extent if the heart of the fully hidden, or partly hidden evidence of material
relevant to this case was heard if not earlier, then at least in 2024.
The two-trip theory
The recent Court of Appeal decision is a tragedy
for all the families involved. Whilst the Judgement of 2025 is reminiscent of
the first Court of Appeal decision in that it is bereft of advancement of the
full understanding of the case today, notwithstanding the hair evidence. Much
of the “new” material has arisen from police files or elsewhere, then supported
by careful consideration of the files. That should have been the priority for
the Court of Appeal, but something has gone wrong. There is evidence of the
file being “cleansed” in a very amateur way, what may have been more may have
covertly removed may never be known.
For the families involved, the 2025 COA
Judgement is not based on the substantial new evidence presented to Counsel
before the 2017 RPOM Application and the time before it was fully finalised.
There is an example in the COA’s para 10 repeated below where we see in the
highlighted red that the OIC in charge of the boat phase accepts late arriving
boats may not have been seen. However, a late in the day arriving boat has now
been identified as a ketch, it’s arrival time noted, its parked position noted
along with its leaving time and is indeed stated to be outside the 300m range described
by the OIC. Extensive new evidence likely to influence a Jury was not before
the COA.
