Scott Watson: "The Price of Justice."
Some years after Scott Watson's second Royal Prerogative of Mercy Application (RPOM) was successful and resulted in a return to the Court of Appeal I recently took the opportunity to read it fully because of other work on the case. Yes, sure, Scott got his referral but the weaknesses in the arguments given by the retired Court of Appeal Judge Sir Panckhurst (P) are evident.
While met with relief to have Scott's case back in the Courts, it remains that many of Panckhurt's findings are far from incisive. Before talking specifically about his decision on the secret witnesses I will point out some of the short-comings.
P gave a list of ketch sightings but not one was taken account of in a fair way. He described the persons who saw the ketch and where. However in a case where the Crown said there was no ketch P needed to make stronger comments as to why that was not a reason (with others that follow here) not to recommend that Scott Watson be pardoned or have his convictions quashed. P was also incorrect in determining what time Watson sailed on New Year's Day despite having video evidence of an interview with the late Reg (of Reg's corner in the bar) saying at around 7.30 Scott from the "raft up". Scott had been concerned that Reg may have hit his boat and called out to him. Reg said he knew Scott by sight and called back that he had seen Scott's boat and would not hit it. Another thing missing comment was the Kalaugher/Kirkwood plotted position of the ketch at Fureaux which was consistent with any number of sightings.
I make the assumption that P did not get the video of Reg's interview although it was mentioned in the paperwork. The time of Scott's departure was critical as to whether he could have sailed to the Cook Strait to allegedly dump bodies in the time allowed before arriving at Erie Bay, or not. The average speed of Scott's boat under sail said he could not. While mentioning time trails one by the harbour master, and another by Keith Hunter with a press representative aboard he wasn't critical of the harbour master's time, which was not only inconsistent with the Hunter time trial, but also another conducted by Chris Watson (Scott's dad) with an independent observer. The departure time from Furneaux Lodge was critical as no one aboard on any nearby boat, (Watson's was tied in a raft up with 2 other boats), heard any screams or similar that one would expect with 2 people killed or incapacitated - with one a big strong young man and the other a feisty teenager who had abused those upon the charter boat where she was due to sleep but could not due to non paying guests taking her berth.
P was forced to acknowledge that the " hatch scratches" on which the Crown dined out, as the couple trying to escape were not able to be done with the hatch closed as the Crown case required. In itself, important evidence wrongly put to the Jury. Already we have 4 or 5 allowances given to the Crown - actual ketch sightings when it was said there were none, a later departure time from the mooring at Furneaux Lodge, an allowance that the couple somehow co-operated in their own deaths by remaining silent with the large young man Ben Smart meekly not fighting back, the absence of available time to reach Erie Bay, the changing accounts of the people there, including the man who had been sprung with a marijuana crop.
The latter brings me back to the secret witnesses and the "con" that was allowed. The Crown was allowed to use the secret prison snitches, despite that their accounts were different, one was withdrawn then confirmed again after the visit to the man in Auckland prison during the investigation into Scott's first RPOM application by Tom Fitzgerald, the police officer called for perjury at the recent Court of Appeal hearing into Scott's case in 2024. P ran through all the reasons why the 2 men shouldn't have given evidence because the prosecutor Davison (once expected to become a high ranking Judge in the Court of Appeal - but stalled in the role of a High Court Judge - a lower position by far) pointed out to the Jury the "dangers" of prison narks and the Judge repeated that. However, the "confessions" were totally damaging.
For a Jury to be warned to consider that the prisoners might be lying (not least because both gave different accounts) presumes more of the capacity of anyone to put aside some horror that has been revealed to them by being told that they should treat it with caution. The fact is that "warnings" are of immeasurable advantage because of prejudicial value that holds real and present danger to create bias against the person at trial. Both men were gang members, and P knew of the lies they told the Jury and commented on them. He also mentioned money and a car given to one and the fragile personality of the other who had mental health issues. Both were addicts.
Meanwhile, the paperwork revealed that the reviewer of the first RPOM, somewhat a Crown "hitman/woman", had spoken to Guy Wallace in a lift before he was to be interviewed and said directly to him, according to her own account that because he had said one thing at trial and was about to say something different that he "had effectively given false evidence." So the woman who was happy with the apparent false evidence of the 2 prisoners, "reminded" a man who had wanted to correct the account of his evidence that he had given "false evidence" no matter the circumstances, memory, pressure from police or so on. But "false." When she interviewed the reliable false narrator Tom Fitzgerald, who is likely to be charged with perjury in the future, about a conversation in the Court House lift where it was claimed he told Guy Wallace to forget certain things resulting in Guy not telling the truth as he knew it, the dear ex tough guy cop rolled out the textbook reply that he couldn't recall that.
As it happens Guy was reported by McDonald as no longer wanting to "change" his evidence, and that is partly how false convictions are created or maintained. As I have written before Fitzgerald is likely to take a big fall, but will Ms McDonald who played the role of "reminding" Guy he had given false evidence whether under threats or not, also be held accountable. Remember she ignored a similar thing that P ignored also, that the 2 police witnesses gave differing accounts of an alleged confession.
As much as there is dirty work in the Watson case so there is charitable and strong work. Scott was well represented at the first trial which in most jurisdictions would be seen as a miscarriage of Justice because of the prison witnesses and the prejudicial value they were for the Crown despite the Crown acknowledging it in a very slick move by the now stranded Davison, undone in his bid to become a top Judge. The use of "prison stoolies" on the proviso that their evidence was highly suspect was an abuse of power in whichever way it is viewed, and even if P may have said the same thing another way, it was a weak decision by him to overlook that the prison witnesses alone resulted in a Miscarriage of Justice in this case.
The late Greg King unsuccessfully took Scott's case to the Privy Council, and but for his passing may have by now seen Scott freed. It was of great interest to the writer to learn that Jonathan Krebs who took the case on despite being told there was no money had fought so hard in presenting the 2nd RPOM. Although he was eventually state-funded he was in boots and all. The RPOM Judgement recalls the now Judge Krebs saying "there was a concerted effort by police to suppress evidence" that was "tantamount to allegations of incitement to commit perjury." Fitzgerald's name is writ large in the writer's mind as one of those Krebs was speaking of, who when he left the case to take a role as a Judge in the District Court did so abruptly raising some unfounded concerns to the writer and most likely Scott as well - however the man was true to Justice as we both thought.
Where with the Watson case go now? Well, never away until his convictions are quashed which may well be the result of his current appeal which will be decided this year and whether indeed there is any need for a retrial. Alternatively, the case will go onto the Supreme Court, but never away.
