Scott Watson: A peek at Justice?

An announcement today from Justice Minister Simon Power that a report from QC Kristy McDonald will be passed to Watson's lawyers for comment before a final decision is made by the Minister - one which would, it appears, fall after the next elections.

As far as I know this is unprecedented in NZ Law and must be welcome to the New Zealand public for a number of reasons. Firstly it is in the interests of Justice that the report be tested by those defending Scott Watson before it is decided upon or made public, because NZ history is littered with reports that remain untested or discredited but which however have been relied upon to wield the sword of Justice against the aggrieved and innocent. Think of the 'inquiries' including applications for 'The Royal Prerogative of Mercy' into the Thomas case before Arthur was pardoned, and indeed consider the twisted people who trot out the IPCA report into the Bain case as some sort of vindication for their failed cause.

The reality is that these reports can be poorly constructed and then shored up with a bitter resolve by the authorities. Far better, as we see today, to allow the Watson defence team the right to comment before the battle lines are drawn over any report. This also allows a 'conference' type opportunity to resolve issues between the parties whilst also narrowing them to a point that they could be taken to Court for Judicial review if a substantial conflict remains.

The 'talking and dialogue' between the parties promotes far better the Public Interest than lines drawn in bitterness. It also clearly demonstrates that the Courts can become involved by way of Judicial Review and it allows a construction of the 'essence' of what might have been a 'wrongful conviction' and allows a test of that construction because it is evident that 'wrongful convictions' aren't accidents, but deliberate. Additionally, part of that deliberate effort is both the avoidance of 'unhelpful' evidence and grooming of other evidence. So when Kirsty McDonald has reported that she was unable to contact 'one of the two secret witnesses who testified against Watson' it is plainly evident to a healthy sceptic that the case against Watson, is, as it was always, in trouble. Better for that trouble to be analysed in a methodical and deliberate way by representatives of both parties that for a gulf to be widened.

And it is to be repeated and not forgotten, that the Courts, as they should, remain accessible to consider the validity of any decision made by any elected politician or their nominee. Also that the Courts must bear the full weight of the healthy scepticism that attaches to 'miracle evidence' and that which has been described elsewhere as 'golden bullet' evidence that emerges to bolster a struggling investigation, not withstanding that the reality that the evidence wasn't 'found' when first look for.

So a hopeful step both for Scott Watson and his family, and for New Zealanders generally to know that when it can be plainly seen, that things are so wrong that smokescreens, prejudice or reliance upon such things as 'secret prison witnesses' are observed as desperate and unjust.