Scott Watson "tightrope" to Freedom by Parole.

                                                   Scott Watson's 2023 Parole Bid

There will be few New Zealanders who haven't heard that admitting guilt is necessary to gaining parole. Lesser numbers will know that there is also a relatively large number who have been paroled without admitting guilt, the more notable of those would be Peter Ellis, Alan Hall, David Tamihere, Gail Maney, and Teina Pora. Gail Maney has been paroled more than once. So those named here have been able to pass through hazardous water and gain parole despite not admitting guilt. Of these 6 named above Rex Haig is now deceased, it may be that his family will continue to pursue the Solicitor General's office for an answer to the question asked of it over a decade as to whether SG had been aware of the number of confessions to having admitted the crime himself. Peter Ellis also deceased had his conviction wiped posthumously. That posthumous reversal had early been applied to Mokomoko wrong accused and hung for the death of Volkner in the 1860s.

It is clear that Scott Watson if paroled would be consistent treatment as given to those above with the exception of Peter and Mokomoko who were postshumously found innocent. There was an advance in the Watson case before his last Board appearance after Sir Panckhurst reported the Watson Royal Prerogative of Mercy plea back to the Governor General indicating he dismissed the evidence of 2 prison witnesses regarding an alleged conviction - where both men gave different details of what they claimed was the confession of Scott Watson. 1 of those 2 according to the records was never charged with a prison assault a senior ex-police officer Tom Fitzgerald was reportedly investigating the serious assault when the witness revealed the "confession" and was never charged. The 2nd man had psychiatric difficulties and recanted his recantation which was pointed out to Sir Panckhurst that fact itself showed unreliability confirmed by both men giving different accounts. It appears to this point that the PB have either never been aware of that situation or were not told.

Sir Pankhurst's declaration on the evidence of the 2 men doesn't prove innocence, but what it does is to remove the "horror stories" the men told the Jury which must have had a strong influence on the Jury and remains in place though it ought to be excluded from consideration by the  Parole Board and Corrections. Fair is fair. International studies show that "false confessions" are invariably embellished to get weak cases over the line. Fairness would say that those confessions should be put from the minds of the Board and not be seen as indicating treatment that Scott could need if they were true. This situation is a grave mistake, one which at least there should be a declaration about - emphatically that the Board the false claims of confessions into account, but rather dismissed them from its mind and deliberations.

Returning to the 6 named above who have never admitted guilt but were paroled anyway, 4 have been established as innocent with the remaining 2 now having their cases graduated to the Court of Appeal. A fair appraisal is that 100% of those claiming to be innocent are either now proven to be or are down the track to having their cases reviewed by the Courts. Let make no mistake any of those above could chosen the easier track of falsely saying they were guilty. 

In an odd twist before Scott's next Board, there has been a call for his supporters to write to the Board rather than to his Lawyer. A real concern is that the Board may be subject to irrelevant material with no valid connection to its decision, worse it may be deliberately abused or insulted in some form by persons pretending to be supporters or even those with problems of their own. These concerns are relevant because the Board last time it sat on Scott's case spoke of some of Scott's supporters being unhelpful to him. While it is not suggested that the Board is not capable of putting irrelevant material aside the risk however is unnecessary - particularly that the pathway to fighting false convictions in New Zealand is growing stronger as the cases above show for those that were innocent and never agreed they were quilty in order to be freed.

Let us hope there is either an intervention with the letters that allows Scott's Lawyer to vet them or that the Board simply says it will only consider letters coming to it through that channel.

1 of Scott Watson's nemesis gains from his misfortune.

 

    Kirsty McDonald QC turned down Scott Watson's RPOM in 2013:  then10 years later;

Did the Lawyer Kirsty McDonald KC who turned down Scott Watson's first Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM) application use material from his 2nd application in the following case. Alan Reay fights to get CTV building Christchurch earthquake complaint dismissed (msn.com)

Mr. Reay finds himself fighting against a historical complaint regarding the design of a building that collapsed during the Christchurch earthquakes killing 115 people. He sought Judicial Review (JR) of a decision by the complaints body Engineering New Zealand to continue with a complaint against him largely centred around a claim that his apparent decision to put another engineer in charge of the build and design of the CTV building resulted in contributing to the tragedy. He says that the claim was nonsense and the building was constructed within the safety protocols of the time and as I understand it, complied at the time of construction but not later when the standards were strengthened. Ms. McDonald points out that the police inquired into the matter and said there was insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Reay with any criminal offence. She also said that the original protocols did not include an express supervision requirement.

That police decision did not discourage Engineering New Zealand from continuing with its complaint upheld by the Court of Appeal in Mr Reay's first JR which Ms McDonald contended among things as "not being in the public" interest due to the rules of 40 years old no longer being relevant. On the face of it a sound argument even if rejected by the COA in any meaningful way. She said her client had been prejudiced by the "drawn out" complaint process. Something which apparently didn't apply to Scott when she took some 4 years to reach a decision about his first RPOM application.

In Scott's 2nd RPOM application not only was Ms. McDonald criticised for the amount of time she took in what some might consider, as certainly Scott Watson would, the "drawn out" process she implemented and no doubt was well paid for. She was also criticised for not recognizing the unfairness of the evidence that was admitted from 2 secret witnesses whom police "re-interviewed" without complaint from her doing the slow progress of her report, and after one man recanted the recantation of his trial evidence without any objection from Ms. McDonald. The significance of that was not understood by her. Amongst other things, it was also said that she was Judging Scott's application when indeed it was her job to gather a general overall opinion of the application before making a recommendation to the office of the Governor General that was balanced weighing both the pro and cons of the Application but certainly not overlooking that a secret who witness who had changed his evidence at least twice would have been an important factor for the first Jury or any subsequent Jury.

Moreover, Scott's second RPOM dealt extensively with JR and where and how it could apply - perhaps giving Ms McDonald QC a lever she might not have well understood before that time at least from the point of view of a man who did not have a fair trial.