Police redesign restraint chair after death of prisoner Jaye Taueli from brain bleed | RNZ News

A quick read of this shows how lead footed the authorities reactions to a crisis are. My experience has been to look for a diversion to help the person out of the crisis they feel they are in. In other words, look for the safety valve and level out the talk as being person to person rather than sides, in which one has all the power.

Frankly, restraining a person in the way Jaye was restrained was a reinforcement of power, an unwillingness to get on the same wave link. It is a 'refinement' of changing a person to the wall in order that whatever is bothering him or her will depart to the pressure of being shackled and your world darkening even more, perhaps remind the person of their whole life and that this indeed was the final "solution."

Let them talk to the point they know they can trust you, that you are not against them but with them and wishing to travel in the same direction until some like Jaye is dealing with something new in life - his own identity on his terms, his right to speak about it and perhaps explain what would be better.

Explain that you are not willing to judge him, that it's not your job and that your job is to listen and maybe have an idea or 2 about the way things could go if Jaye got something near what he was asking for, as long it was better, make him feel happy and so on. What was done to Jaye was so backward, I've heard this type of plea before with too few people knowing how to listen, turn the volume down, talk, walk side by side.

Rex Haig: police help the guilty man frame Rex Haig?

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/crime/rex-haig-case-concerns-over-how-immunity-was-granted-to-crewmates/

It has taken me a couple of days to absorb the news in the link above, which is a report from investigative journalist Mike White. In the modern era the New Zealand public generally realise that police in New Zealand do sometimes frame the innocent, albeit police may well think the accused person is guilty because of 'gut instinct' and all the other factors that may contribute. I am aware of one case where police gave immunity to 2 men to provide evidence against a 3rd, who police argued was the principal offender. The result was the jury finding the man guilty as a party, indicating the jury's belief that one of the 2 provided with immunity was the main offender who never went to prison whilst the lesser offender was sentenced to life imprisonment. To put that in context compared to what happened to the late Rex Haig it has to be absorbed that according to the paperwork obtained by Mike White through the Official Information Act police knew that one of the persons they gave immunity to in the Haig case had 'confessed' to the murder police attributed to Haig.

That alleged confession wasn't to a single person, but rather to up to a dozen different people - ordinarily, in most cases more than enough to prove guilt. That's what has taken me time to absorb, it is almost too evil to comprehend it could happen in NZ. Of course, if it has happened once, it more than likely has happened before. As the article shows one man who heard the confession was killed, Hogan, the immunity witness and probable killer according to those he had confessed to, was never even interviewed about the death of Anton Sherlock a witness to the confession of Hogan and a man who had said he has been threatened by Hogan if he revealed Hogan's confession. 9 days before Sherlock was due to provide evidence, he was found murdered - a killing which police also attributed to Rex Haig. Just going over that again - police believed that Haig killed a man who had exculpatory evidence for Rex Haig. Later another man, Nigel Johnson, would be convicted of the murder of Sherlock, despite protesting his innocence.

Sometime later when an internal police inquiry looked to deal with the death of Anton Sherlock, the investigator Detective Inspector Winter would dismiss Hogan's involvement using the following extraordinary reasoning:

“If killing Sherlock to stop him providing evidence was the motive, then there was David Barr and at least 12 other people who were potential victims who lined up to give affidavit evidence prejudicial to Hogan,” Winter wrote. “As Barr and some of these others are now deceased, perhaps it is suggested that Hogan has had a hand in those deaths also?”

It seems DI Winter did not consider that Hogan, who according to others had already killed 1 man, and threatened to kill a 2nd if that person (Sherlock) revealed Hogan's confession, did not appreciate that the at least 12 people who claimed to have also heard the Hogan confession might well have felt it was too dangerous to cross Hogan.

Collapse of the Watson Case?

 

                              Have the First Signs of the Collapse of the Watson

                                                       Case Emerged?

It's been very clean for a long time that Scott Watson was framed. Well, clear to many of the public, but without a way ahead to collapse it. That is, until around 10 years ago when the author considered the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, a fairly ancient part of the Lawyer with its own history of Petitioning for Mercy. Mercy in itself been an ancient concept that one, particularly a King or Queen, could be swayed toward being merciful for a subject who had befallen unfortunate times and may indeed have been innocent of a crime he or she was convicted of and could take a case to the King or Queen who might find reason in their explanation or indeed see that a misfortune had befallen the person who wished to illustrate why they could not be guilty of for example a capital crime that brought with it a death sentence. Or alternatively that it was an accident of some sort or a life and death arisen in some manner.

The history is far deeper and more real than can be explained here returning to Scott Watson it was the King or Queen's men who had picked him out as someone expendable and distanced him from any feeling they might have that they were about to commit a crime almost as severe as the ones they would convince themselves, somewhat was guilty, was that type and therefore expendable for reasons we may yet find out in Scott Watson's case because clues abound.

Around that time, I was interested in some international cases that were discussed online and "met" so to speak to Americans, one was Professor Chris Halkides who was working with another man "Charlie," his name will come to me on the Elizabeth Knox case which they tore to shreds with logic and from memory found the actual offender. While Chris work in the institutions teaching how Miscarriages of Justice might happen - Charlie came from another spectrum, the type that reasoned things through and was only happy when he could understand the situation.

It was Charlie that first said the very obvious thing about the Watson case, the couple could never have been killed on a boat in a raft up without the alarm going off and the couple fighting back, and certainly not in the way 2 prisoner "witnesses" would claim. This was over one Xmas around the new year and so I decided to write to some of the people whom I knew were involved in fighting the case. Somewhat to my surprise they all responded and when I might be first personal meeting with Keith Hunter and Neville Munro at a coffee shop in the city, Keith on having read a one-page letter I wrote about the use of the RPOM said, putting the document on the table, "this could work."

At another time, I will perhaps write more about this, and in better detail and with a clearer memory of one man who came with Mike Kalaugher to my house with the news he'd seen the ketch in Milford Marina, I think it was - and that in itself is another story of how a door opened in relation to that. Relatively quickly I would meet the people who had the paperwork I wanted, and information I needed, and I got to write. I had always liked the concept that you could write yourself out of prison, and therefore write another person out of prison - that in itself leads to a big story, but for now, this remains about the heading above.

About 9 months I had a petition almost finished and had either written to Scott about or given him a copy before I visited him to ask if I could submit the RPOM, that day I also met his dad Chris and Scott said "put it in" speaking to the draft I'd given him.

It took 3 more months or so, and it did go in, and another fight began. A fight to justify a Miscarriage of Justice that was never going to lose, despite the fight from police still in power. They had chosen their side and I had chosen mine, outnumbered to heck.

Here it is 2026, and if the truth is the currency I'm no longer out numbered to heck thanks to support and help from all over New Zealand, the Kraken has woken, and the truth has flown free. I will Petition the King, well, the modern version of it the Supreme Court, that may turn the Petition of one man for another away, or they may read instead of more than a 100 people who say they saw a boat, they'll never forget, and some who even saw Ben and Olivia on it and that's what matters.

More Mysteries in the Watson case revealed

 

2053 JS 10/1/98 Taylor confirms sighting of mystery ketch, says double ended so won’t get flooded if it turns on its mooring. Says he has a lot of experience with such boats.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sELASoI23UdfO1EsCm3Yrn-mZMkSZBJJ

(Format: Word Document)

12350 JS 10/1/98 Same day as Taylor’s JS 2053 and appears to be the same statement.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LWBFqvrAL1oj7w9tIONqeXkwSKf0KzV4

(Format: Word Document)

14752 JS 10.1.98 This is the earliest communication from Taylor 9.45 and it appears 2053JS is homicide police calling him back. Confirms ketch sighting and that is the one he saw in the paper and calls it a “double ender.” He thinks that it arrived at either 3 or 6, a similar time to Kiernan and others who said the ketch arrived late in the day.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YQk2-AjkNcmEke3iMSEl_iQYJPzpqiPo

(Format: Word Document)

An undated questionnaire in which the questioner decides that O’Malley may be confused with the Alliance but says that Taylor is adamant it was a double-ended ketch. They both recognize a sketch shown to them as the ketch. It could be suggested the questionnaire help police decide who to not call. Clearly both witnesses were very strong in the identifications but somehow the witness who “might” be susceptible to agreeing that he had mistaken the Alliance for the ketch was called, while the man apparently ‘adamant’ about seeing the ketch was not called, showing another way to disappear the ketch.

Sir Graham in his report to the Governor General believed then Prosecutor Davison’s claim that only O Malley aboard the Yolland had seen the Ketch. Now we know that the skipper Taylor also saw the ketch and the questioner says that Taylor was adamant, he had seen the ketch, yet he was never called. That fits were a very visible pattern in this case, hiding strong ketch sightings and claiming that others were mistaken. It has been an unjust police deception that has worked “satisfactorily” for 2 decades.

Hayden Morrissey,

Post-trial statement re deck material and yacht rails where Hayden is very clear about a wooden and rope rails: Hayden Morrissey gave evidence.

 

 

 

 

Crutchley Document:

 

Bruce McLachlan EIC (police chief search officer for boats Endeavour Inlet and elsewhere.) Reveals details of the ‘Crutchley document.’ Confirms belated search for Chinese Junk immediately before trial as well as inspecting file notes, statements etc re ketch sightings. Gave evidence.

NOE begins page 2929, 19/8/98:

View outlook message:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10X_6ayG_NchHjVLT2Dna0FJttvYMOc9y               ok

(Format: Word Document)

The deleted ‘Crutchley report.’

(Accidental deletion here of Link 18/11/25. Should be in other copies.)

According to job sheets this ‘revised’ material should have included the Gerald Brown sighting of a ketch departing Furneaux Inlet and the various other sightings of the mk. Instead, it appears to have ‘looked’ for departing smaller boats only, although 18 months after the mk was dismissed as not existing the June 98 revision seeks reports of a ‘junk style’ ketch from residents within the Endeavour Inlet. Even today (March 2026) the file turns up exculpatory material for Watson which was either ignored or deleted from the ‘Crutchley doc.’ (DELETED)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s_Rl9hpiNABSndE_MIRq4D12XicQRSSk        FULL DELETION

(Format: Word Document)

The June 1999 job sheet #14338 of VE Gave evidence (name suppressed) regarding boats leaving on the morning of the 1^st of January 1998 and considered by timeline to have been part of the ‘Crutchley report.’ Notable is the departure time of a boat Eastgate does not identify in comparison to the Reg McManaway video (part of the RPOM proper) recording seeing the Blade preparing to break moorings around 7 to 7.30 the same morning. If that is correct it adds to the concern of what material was deleted in the ‘Crutchley report’ and the only assumption is, that like all other deleted material in this case, it exculpated the applicant. While Sir Graham accepted the neutrality of the prison witnesses’ evidence he mistakenly overlooked the concern of VE credibility by both her actions and what she claimed in her changing statements. It is likely she was pressured over her involvement with cannabis smoking at what may have resulted to her career had she been charged, accordingly that the embargo on her and her husband’s evidence should have remained.

An author’s note here such men as Reg McManaway a charter skipper had a job in which he had the safety of others in the same way a pilot ship master. Like other skippers, those working on the wharves and even the security staff had a dedication to public safety that is easily overlooked by the fact there was a “Reg’s Corner” in the bar and other such things denoting casualness when in fact like pilots they sailed with care, noted possible hazards, judged the weather and other factors that an observer from afar may not appreciate, a thirty to forty foot boat in a tight mooring space and on a turning tide require skill and care, a reminder of that is Reg calling out to SW that he’d seen his boat, just as he noted the MM in the bar that brought concern to Peter                and the much younger Mathew Sommerville Smith both of who concerned about their charges did not identify the man they watched clearly in the bar as Mr Watson. A person the trusting Roz McNeilly, at the time, believed police despite not showing her his photo, when she has asked to see it for certainty, that the MM was indeed Mr Watson – and was lied to.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XLdsAtySAW73pp1DWcwrW7WeBrUhsJgk

(Format: Word Document)

14338 JS 8/6/99 Ms E (name suppressed) job sheet confirms a yacht leaving at 7.30 (the time when McManaway calls out to Watson that he has seen the Blade and won’t hit it, but she does not identify the yacht. It would have been very easy for investigators to confirm that it was Watson’s yacht which Ms C referred to and may have done such are the number of changes and deletions; had it not later been necessary to make Watson’s departure time to attempt to provide for the Cook Strait trip. The proximity to the trial indicates this was a late change to the file during the period of the Crutchley Report. The fact police could not confirm that it was another yacht that left at the time is persuasive.

The June 1999 job sheet was compiled by B McLachlan D 6952

Ken Martin (skipper of Jane Maria) 14188JS, 26/5/99 (Part of the deleted Crutchley report):

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10LPKEkcDdU_NdWYye95wtjnGpBWmLs3o

(Format: Word Document)

14188 JS 26/5/99 Another late JS which refers to Crutchley doc no 14066. This job sheet just before the trial is entered here because it names its purpose – the deleted (Crutchley report.) It was taken by Paul Merrett Det C 692. As will be seen later Ken Martin inadvertently played a significant role in demonstrating that the police displayed no real interest in concentrating on finding the mystery man. Police were zeroed in only on Scott Watson to the exclusion of all others from very early in the investigation.

The Jeremy Brown statement records a ketch leaving the inlet and continues a pattern of misidentifications that follow events in the Furneaux Lodge bar where Watson was incorrectly identified by some patrons as owning a ketch and inviting people aboard his “ketch” to sail to Tonga the next day. Or to have a beer on the boat that “cannot be missed” as it is the “only” such vessel in the inlet. This manipulation of evidence provided details of behaviour wrongly attributed to Scott Watson, falsely painted him as a predator. There are several mentions of a stranger that was not Watson, despite this, police did not complete new identikit pictures or search for the man or those that may have known him and left the trail to go cold.

                                            Crown case in Watson running on empty?

It has been a busy few weeks, dragging into months after the Court of Appeal (COA) rejected Scott's appeal, which one could say is quite a mystery. There would be few people in New Zealand that were not comfortable about the prison witnesses A and B in Scott's case. Yet surprisingly little note has been taken of that by the Court, at the very least.

There is nothing in the Judgement that deals with it as a separate issue, as one would expect because it was the most significant evidence of the Crown case - confessions that the Crown clearly felt were necessary because of the overall weakness in its case. Now however the case needs to stand on his own 2 feet which upon inspection is particularly weak evidence. The concern is why didn't Scott qualify for a retrial at the very least with the "strongest" evidence gone? Is it because the COA hearing was limited as to what could be heard? The answer is yes. A 390-page judgement avoids the topic, the likely impact of the secret witness evidence is ignored, as is the impact it made on the Jury and therefore if it had been a fair trial.

Only the Crown and Court appear to believe it was, and if it indeed was, why did they call evidence that was ultimately rejected? I think I know, and it is because the Crown case is weak without it. Rightly or wrongly, the Court appears to be circling the horses to help out the Crown instead of acknowledging they got the wrong man, and it was dicey evidence that saw him found guilty. To summarise the remaining evidence;

    No definite identification of Scott as the mystery man.

    No proof of the second trip ashore.

    Floundering evidence as to the time of arrival at Eerie Bay.

    Very suspect evidence of a trip to Cook Strait in fact, science working against it.

    The prisoner evidence rejected.

    The hair evidence questionable and without support from any of the above points.

Now there is a petition planned for the Supreme Court explaining the above and why it should be factored into Scott's appeal.

Onwards and upwards.

     

                                                Finally, the keys to Scott's cell doors

I can't recall at the moment who put this link together, but it is brilliant, and it will open the Petition. The Petition has links throughout, but with funding. I would hope to put at least one (for The Court in as full prints, particularly this part, because of its visual impact. Then print the rest of this part with all the links open. Following this start is the affidavit of Tony Kiernan, which deals with the Ketch's arrival. One of the many interesting parts is the ketch shown at night alongside Scott's boat, the Blade.

And following it will be an insight into the elements that prove this is a Miscarriage of Justice. Although I'm unsure how long I've had it for. I endeavour to show how a complaint by Chris Watson, which was exactly on the mark about Pope in particular, was evaded in an "independent" inquiry by a retired Deputy Commissioner who claimed Pope made a mistake. Yeah right, and Scott went to prison for 26 years.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RX1C_bVd99DtBIDuXuT7DB7b5DRdJ0ww/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RX1C_bVd99DtBIDuXuT7DB7b5DRdJ0ww/view?usp=sharing

 Interesting Article

                                       Scandal in The Police Commissioner's Office

The following article is an indication of a big shake-up in Police Headquarters. The first indication of probems at Police Headquarters was after the Arthur Thomas convictions were overturned. I personally had heard of some concerns when working on the Scott Watson case, however at that point, I didn't have time to consider the situation. Fortunately, I remember the person's name and will try to make contact.

It's fairly plain to me that there was a lot that went wrong at the top of the tree in Scott's case, and following that, there was little surprise that Pope and Fitzgerald gained promotions there. It looks like that too will implode in short order, much to the relief of not only supporters of Scott but also those who feel that there is little accountability at the top of the police ranks when it comes to wrongful convictions.

                                                    ---------------------------------------------------

Geoffrey Palmer: The McSkimming scandal shows we need a whole new Policing Act Geoffrey Palmer Published in The Spin Off November 18th 2025 Democracy requires a trusted system to uphold the rule of law. In this instance, the rule of law has been polluted at its source, argues former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer KC. Recent events uncovering police failings and serious misconduct have wider implications for our democracy that need to be addressed urgently. I cannot recall an issue in the life of this government that has more far-reaching constitutional consequences: it goes to the heart of the protection that the rule of law provides for New Zealand’s democratic framework. To say the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s scathing report into how the force handled claims of sexual offending against disgraced former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming has been scandalous is an understatement. It found serious misconduct at the highest levels of police. Seldom in the annals of public policy has New Zealand suffered a worse failure of public officials. The report made a series of recommendations for NZ Police and the government, all of which have been accepted. A former police officer himself, police minister Mark Mitchell has said the public will see “big changes”. Public service minister Judith Collins promises it “must never happen again”. Unfortunately, we have seen this before: whistle-blower Louise Nicholas was not believed as a teenager accusing officers of rape, her complaints were buried and only decades later was the policeman handling the case found guilty of obstructing justice. That should have been warning enough. In April 2007 came the release of Dame Margaret Bazley’s Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. She uncovered 313 complaints of sexual assault against 222 officers over 25 years, revealing a culture of silence shielding offending officers. There was a considerable amount of praise by the authorities, then, that they had solved the problem. But recent events show clearly this was not the case. Rot and decay has crept into the New Zealand democratic framework. Public service minister Judith Collins, police commissioner Richard Chambers and police minister Mark Mitchell arriving for a press conference at parliament in response to the release of the IPCA report on November 11, 2025 (Photo: Mark Mitchell/New Zealand Herald via Getty Images) In order to understand how serious these events are, it is necessary to understand the functions and powers entrusted to the police. New Zealand has a nationwide police force, unlike federal countries where law and order is split between state and federal governments. Clearly, a strong nationwide police force can be a potential danger when something goes wrong, as it has done here. The police are a disciplined force organised under a strict hierarchy in which orders are given and are carried out by subordinates. That fact itself means that wrongful orders can pervert the whole system. The New Zealand police have something close to a monopoly on the coercive legal powers they have over people. They have the power of arrest. They have the power to investigate suspected criminal offences. They have the power to bring prosecutions, under the general supervision of crown prosecutors. The force was first established here in 1886 and has existed continuously under various statutes ever since. Currently, police work under a detailed statute, the Policing Act 2008, the purpose of which is to “provide for policing services in New Zealand and to state the functions and provide for the governance and administration of the New Zealand Police”. The Policing Act sets out, in sections 8 and 9, the principles upon which the act is based and then the functions of the police. The principles are: (a) principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law; (b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence; (c) policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus; (d) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights; (e) policing services are provided independently and impartially; (f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity. The functions are: (a) keeping the peace; (b) maintaining public safety; (c) law enforcement; (d) crime prevention; (e) community support and reassurance; (f) national security; (g) participation in policing activities outside New Zealand; (h) emergency management. These general principles and functions were plainly inadequate to prevent what occurred in recent events. The whole act should be reconsidered now, not merely amended. Former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming leaving Wellington District Court after pleading guilty to eight charges of possessing objectionable publications on November 6, 2025 (Photo: Mark Mitchell/New Zealand Herald via Getty Images) The police are invested with great powers, so the consequences for democracy are serious where those powers are not properly exercised or they are abused. Clearly, they have been abused here. Democracy requires a trusted system to uphold the rule of law. In this instance the rule of law has been polluted at its source, when the higher echelons have divided into groups and become immersed in issues of personal advantage rather than executing their responsibilities according to law. Putting right the profound failures that have occurred is an issue of vital importance. The prime minister should be centrally involved here, articulating the serious nature of these issues and how to fix them. So far, he has been a bystander. The cure here will not emanate from a discredited senior police elite. It is ministers who must take responsibility for the failures, rectify them and drive the legislation that will be required. A policy process of the highest quality the government machine can produce is what is needed. The 135-page IPCA report stands as a colossus over the whole series of these events, and is a document that people should read. New Zealand is fortunate that this agency stood up and performed in an exemplary way. Its advice must be followed in all respects. It is a remorseless and detailed analysis of serious wrong-doing. So careful is the analysis that it seems impossible on the facts it lays out to be in any doubt as to the serious nature of the abuses it exposes. It makes many detailed recommendations: 13 for police and a further two for the government regarding police oversight. All have been accepted. Ministers have made strong statements about remedial action, including proposing appointing an inspector-general to give the highest level of independent oversight of police. Questions remain over how this will be implemented. The steps necessary to perfect the remedial action are perhaps more elaborate than has so far been contemplated. Getting it right this time is imperative. The record on these issues is deplorable. Unless real care and rigour are employed there is a risk of push-back from the rotten police culture so clearly at work in the existing system. This may be seen earlier rather than later. All the recommendations must be given statutory teeth. Much care is needed in the legislative process, where much can be lost between cup and lip. The cabinet paper approving legislative policy should be published after it has been made so that there can be some assurance that efforts to clean the Augean stables of the New Zealand Police do not have to be addressed again in the future. The present act was entirely ineffectual to prevent these deplorable events which must be unable to recur. It would seem appropriate to enact a whole new Policing Act in light of these events. The rule of law deserves stern protection