A shock in Watson.

Not much shocks me in respect of the Watson case and others. In fact I generally get a little impatient with the preoccupation some folks have along the lines of suggestions of corrupt practices involved in these cases. Not because I don't believe them necessarily, but more so because they can obscure the best way forward.

However I was shocked today when reading Keith Hunter's blog under the heading of 'Governer General' I hope others who may not have read it will take the time. The revelation that shocked me was that the MOJ's Chief Legal Officer Jeff Orr is reported to have made directions to the reviewer of Watson's application for The Royal Prerogative of Mercy [TRPOM] Kirsty McDonald, which were inconsistent with what Watson's had advanced in his application. I know Watson's application pre-dated the Bain application for Compensation for wrongful imprisonment but it reveals another similarity between the way the 2 cases have been dealt with by the Department of Justice.

To be brutally clear TRPOM ranks higher than applications for compensation in that it gives protection of citizens from false imprisonment, but shares the same administration as applications for compensation, ie: Cabinet of the Government of the day. This Legislative Power has the Regal robes that pre-date the signing of the Magna Carta which took away powers of the King to be Judge and Jury over the lives of his subjects - that it survives in NZ under the cloak of Executive Power has never really been challenged, until now. It's challenges are from the Legislative rights of a natural person living in NZ and is enshrined in the NZ Bill of Rights. No Minister of the Crown stands above it although their predecessors may have done for a 100 years or more before the BORA was enacted.

It's clear that the BORA has a place in every facet of a citizen's rights - except it would seem when Cabinet deign to wield their 'Royal' powers. Though they may be confused about the Powers and hopefully will soon address their misuse, or confusion about their misuse by surrendering the thought that the BORA does not apply in some circumstances. With the loss of this confusion hopefully will come a complete recognition that a Prerogative Power, is a neutral power, not as happened in both Watson, Bain and other cases as an opportunity for Cabinet to adopt anything more that a sober, impartial approach to what, in the case of Watson's failed quest for an exercise of the RPOM where both men had found themselves to be fighting against the Government who stood behind Crown Law and police rather than maintain neutrality. The fact is that because Cabinet's may be unable to divorce themselves from politics to exercise a prerogative power, at the very least the Courts should preside over the fairness of such applications. Indeed a Prerogative pathway should begin at the Courts, not eventually find it's way there after the meddling of mice and men.

Specifically when Jeff Orr the MOJ's Chief Legal Officer interpreted Watson's application, apparently to suit himself, and when he instructed the inquirer into the application - Kirsty McDonald, Jeff Orr was exercising a power he does not have. This is an abysmal example of the confusion of the Justice Department, their lack of clarity of what Judicial Mercy actually is even when tasked with its employment. Watson's application was not able to be edited or re-configured by Orr, he has no such powers. His prudent pathway to changes to the application was to convene a Judicial conference in the High Court to moot changes he thought were his right to make to the application, along with his interpretation of how the investigation should be undertaken, to have timetables set and likely outcomes observed in some detail - not, as he did, to take charge.

Reading on Hunter's blog that the Lawyers for Watson were required to sign a pledge not to release any RPOM report to the press, even indeed to Watson himself or his father gives a clear indication of an abuse of power. Orr is deeply confused over what powers he believes the Act describing TRPOM offers him. In fact it offers him no powers at all, it prescribes a process that does not include a representative of one side or the other taking absolute power but rather provides a way forward for a person the system may have failed to the point he or she is falsely imprisoned. The use of the word 'system' is important in that statement, but even then the prime importance is the all governing NZBORA.

Frankly Watson's application had no chance as it was put into a system that wasn't in the slightest way seen as impartial, it was asking the devil to change his clothes in order that he might present as reasonable or impartial in judging his own alleged misdeeds. As some readers may know I have strong feelings about individual rights before the Law and have always seen the exercise of Executive Powers open to abuse, so has proved the case in Bain, Watson and others before them.

Before finishing on this subject I should mention a couple of things about Keith Hunter's blog and the man himself representative of the struggle against Miscarriages of Justice. Sometimes one can get too close to the subject, engrossed in the abuses, the neglect of rights, the lies and so on, leaving it difficult to see a way forward. I doubt there may be anyone, or at least few, with Keith's grasp of the Watson case - he has proven that he is right, that the case should be retried or thrown out. It should be others that now focus on taking the case forward to where it belongs - in the Courts, prepared to battle for every inch of Watson's rights and those of our own. Mercy is not just a word in the Justice system - it is representative of rescuing the falsely damned when the Law or the practitioners of the Law have failed, it is the hand of Mercy that extends were the meaning of the Law has become convoluted and lost in pointlessness, where men like Orr have adopted powers they are not entitled to even tread near. I also mention here someone often forgotten Chris Birt whose work on the Thomas case has so badly been stone-walled. It is important that he, like Keith and others from the Thomas era have the foundations of their work built upon. That each of these cases of known Miscarriages of Justice are not allowed to be viewed in isolation, separated from a momentum which should carry on until even Prerogative Powers, if they must remain -   are not abused by the devil in disguise judging his own work.

Finally on Keith's Blog I discovered the name of Chan Phillips, barman on duty the night of Ben and Olivia's disappearance He was shown a montage of photos that included a photo of Watson to whom he was encouraged to identify and refused. I don't know if the Jury were aware of that but suddenly there are 3 sober witnesses acknowledging that they could not identify Watson with the couple, against what, not a single witness that put them altogether and he sits in prison? Watson's Jury never knew that, they heard of a goal house alleged confession carefully composed to gain maximum prejudice against Watson instead, a confession which incidentally is also gone.