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.