Scott Watson - does it matter?

One of the delays in Watson being given a decision to his application under the Prerogative of Mercy is that the Justice Department now need confirmation (signed affidavits) by Scott's lawyers (couldn't they just ring or write to them) at his trial that they did not know about an earlier identification procedure where main witnesses did not recognise Watson in a photo montage.
This is a procedural issue, if the lawyers did know and did not make an issue of it then the Law expects Scott to live with that, a 'tough luck' situation - 'your lawyers knew about it and didn't raise it so  bad luck.' When you think about that procedure the very exercise of it is a denial of Scott's rights. Every person facing prosecution is entitled to a fair trail despite who might be acting for him or her and what they may or may not decide at trial to use. Overall, this is fair because many guilty people often  round on their lawyers after their trials. The common procedures in terms of important evidence is that lawyers require the defendant to agree  for the lawyer to employ or not employ various options, including cross-examination of evidence, presentation of evidence and so on.
It becomes unfair when a man has spent years of his life in prison on circumstantial evidence, for a crime for which he had no motive to commit,  is required to legitimise what his lawyers might or might not have known at the time of the trial. In this case surely the single issue is that witnesses shown a montage of photos, in which a photo of Scott was included, did not identify him as the last man seen with the two deceased.
So why does the department use yet another tactic to deny Watson his freedom or the right to a fair trial where all the admissible evidence is heard? Watson's father, Chris, is quoted as saying that he believes it is an intentional delaying tactic by the Crown. Who can blame him, this application is years old, there is a public unease about this case that won't go away along with the knowledge that intentional misinformation was leaked to the public before and after Scott's arrest. Now the Crown ask for 'proof' that the lawyers didn't know - as if it could  matter more than the fact that Scott was effectively identified as not being the person in company of the deceased, boarding a yacht or sloop the morning they died.
A fair trial can't follow a Jury considering its verdict without knowing that important witnesses excluded the defendant as being the last person seen with a deceased, because for all else it means that the last person seen with the deceased was not the person charged with the crime. It's a full alibi, complete and full and something which the Jury had to hear, that it wasn't Scott last seen with the dead couple prior to their disappearance.
So no, it doesn't matter if the lawyers knew of the evidence or not, what matters is that evidence which showed Scott not to be the last man in the company of the couple before they disappeared.