How do cases of wrongful convictions fare in New Zealand

 

                           Corrections and the Parole Board Crisis in New Zealand

As the majority of posts here, have been about the Scott Watson case it's a good place to start but certainly does not overlook a raft of other cases of wrongful convictions including 2 other current ones, that of DavidTamihere, and Mark Lundy. As it happens 2 involved double murders, and the third, Scott's, an alleged double murder, where unlike the former two, bodies were not discovered. But this is not to forget the explosiveness of the Gail Maney case that leaves all but one of the alleged participants discharged by the Court, with only 1, Stephen Stone, remaining convicted despite all his alleged accomplices or parties to the crimes for which he was convicted declared innocent - the vagaries of our Laws and Court decisions.

Briefly, in Tamihere it was said that he killed Urban Hoglen and Heidi Paakkonen and disposed of the 2 bodies at sea according to a Crown witness. Later one body was found buried with a watch still attached. The "same" watch had been found in the room of David's son and was presented at trial as being given to the son after having been taken from the body of Urban. Since the trial, a now-deceased, "witness" was found guilty of perjury in the case by way of a private prosecution. That conviction shredded the credibility of the entire case but an appeal was rejected in the Court of Appeal, it now heads off to the Supreme Court. The deceased witness was Bob Harris revealed as a lifetime informer who killed a young couple and later described it as like eating an ice cream and is indicative of another factor, certain police continued to frame people in difficult cases, using whatever method possible. For example, Teina Pora having been convicted of killing Susan Burdett from evidence by a person called Malcolm Rewa who was later found guilty of the crime himself when acting as a lone rapist. Police stalled the hunt for Rewa so that it looked like Pora was the alleged "South Auckland Rapist." Meanwhile, Rewa continued his crime spree.

The enormity of the effort to convict Mark Lundy is probably unparalleled anywhere in the world. However, it does have a viable suspect which to my knowledge was never investigated. Mark spent some 2 years or so on bail after winning a retrial at the Privy Council before being found guilty again on particularly weak and dicey MRNA evidence. Now he is much like Scott caught within a Justice System and a Parole Board (PB), that has no defined manner within which to treat prisoners who take the rare stand of claiming innocence. Doing so, can, and does create far longer imprisonment. With close scrutiny, the case readily falls apart but is an enormous file that takes much work and patience to simplify into a Miscarriage of Justice.

Returning to the Watson convictions key evidence was destroyed by police and Crown Law that has not been translated in any viable way, either by Corrections all the PB. Both those parties, may not have fully understood or accepted that a key event that described the alleged death of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope is destroyed. The couple had to be on Scott's boat to have been killed by him there, but there is no evidence they were ever there but strong evidence they were not.

I'll list the things from memory:

1/ Alleged confessions made by Scott to 2 prison stoolies - since rejected by Sir Graham Panckhurst (SG) when finding in favour of Scott's second Royal Prerogative of Mercy Application (RPOM.a)

2/ Scratches to the inner hatch of the Watson boat the Blade, said to have arrived there when the couple tried to escape by opening the hatch, the lock for it was inside the cabin and only able to be locked from the inside. The scratches were rejected y SG as having been made by the couple.

3/ The couple being killed or restrained while the Blade was rafted to 2 other boats with people on board, some of who Scott asked to continue to party on that New Years. One must ask where the couple were going to go as Scott brazenly made a move to party with one of the women in the raft up.

4/ The "2 trip theory" which was also never proven, needed Scott to go back ashore without anyway of being able to do so, also requiring him to be unseen before returning with the couple who remained silently in the cabin despite it being unable to be locked from the outside. The couple could have simply gone to another boat in the raft up to raise the alarm even by rocking or kicking the hull with Scott locked out.

5/ The alleged cleaning of the Blade which left fish blood, while an alleged wipe down for fingerprints left many intact, along with their being an explanation for CD tapes to be free of fingerprints after earlier being wiped down after a severe storm in Cook Strait.

6/ 2 hairs said to be Olivia's alleged to have been found on the Blade but never photographed their in situ in the manner potential critical evidence always is in a homicide. The 2 hairs are no longer likely to have been even if not found in "extra" searches of the Hope household.

7/ A scientist for the Crown's evidence supporting the defence regarding the 2 hairs said to hold the case together.

8/ The argument there was no 2 masted ketch in the bay where Scott was moored and people being pressured to say it wasn't there or ignored and discredited if they wouldn't.

9/ Police threats to people who insisted they saw the ketch.

10/ Evidence showing the entire file was "cleansed" of evidence showing Scott's innocence such as sightings, and photos taken from the file.

11/ Bribes given to witnesses and threats made against others to forget what they had seen that night, or in the following days and months.

Most reasonable people would see the problems with the Watson convictions on the above points alone and there are 100s more. It is what was "alleged" to have happened aboard the Blade that holds Scott in custody and stops his parole so far. So the question is why isn't there a safe method to deal with parole for people in Scott's situation? And indeed that of Mark Lundy who is said to be a model prisoner and whose case is at the CCRC. One might suspect that it is because the Department of Corrections and Parole Board are bonding to link with the police, but that, while doubtful, is happening inadvertently.

But more so, why isn't there a plan, legislated if necessary to prevent people who claim innocence with good cause and support they are innocent. It's bad enough being in prison for a crime you are shown not to have committed without being punished for that reminds of the days where innocent people may have been tortured to death if they could withstand the torture only to die by torture if they denied it. I cite that from the middleages, witch burning, and so forth. Yet it's hard to see any difference now because it is torture for the wrongfully convicted made worse for not admitting it. New Zealand and the world can do better on this though I'm sure some Justice systems are sophisticated enough to have dealt with this problem of not saying you're guilty when you're not and spend extra years in prison for not co-operating in your own false imprisonment.

Scott Watson: time to pause the grief in the expectation of Justice, at last.

 

                                     The Watson case continues into deeper fantasy.

It's important for Justice in NZ that the Court of Appeal quashes the convictions of Scott Watson for its own credibility. This case has been before the COA twice before, which makes it important the Court's decisions note that. The Court must also note that his return to the Court resulted from a rare use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy undertaken by an Appeal Court Judge who found weaknesses in critical witness evidence, something that the Crown will never overcome. The Court of Appeal heard that a senior officer had committed perjury. Each of these things is alarming, as to the safety of Scott's convictions. The hair evidence is weakened further to the point of being unreliable. No critical evidence stands unimpeached.

Scott Watson could have been a free man now if he was guilty. It's rare, even if existent, that the Court notes, that a guilty person seldom wishes to extend their imprisonment by claiming innocence. On the other hand, some public perceptions of the case remain which are damaging without being clear to the people that raise them. Reading some opinions of the case "supporting" Scott, seek further new steps, such as finding the mystery ketch, finding the bodies, and investigating things already freshly investigated. Yet all these things have happened despite some of the public being unaware of them, gripping some with anxiety.

Now there is a single reason for concern and it goes to David Tamaheri's case which was rejected by the COA when there was both fundamental new evidence and proof of malfeasance. The writer says that is not for the Court to determine but rather a Jury disabused of the false evidence, if indeed not following the precedent set in Gail Maney's case and that of Alan Hall - where a Judgement was given as to the investigation. So David should now see his convictions put aside, and a stop to picking through perjured evidence to save the police case against him.

Still, there are calls for more to be done in Scott's case by people not acquainted with the Law or the evidence as it stands now. A recognized fact is that perjury goes to the heart of a conviction so for the COA to step around that is very poor, at the very least a retrial is required and that should have happened in Tamaheri. In Scott's case, it is not the book writers, or television adaptions by investigators, that are anxious about the outcome because truth be known there are strong and cooperative links between all those sources, and if they are quiet, as they are now, it is because of confidence that every rock has been moved and looked under and while the COA could not obviously hear it all, a complete picture was given that clearly showed perjury by police.

Sadly, some years ago there were anti-Scott crusades carried out by people in support of police, and indeed ex-police, that were not well-founded and have come back against them with a bite to silence them. The shoe is on the other foot. Equally, there are crusades by allegedly pro-Scott people who heightened alarm for his supporters. While on the other hand, those that have done the work that culminates in the case for innocence as it stands now, remain quiet.

So for the many 1000s of Scott's supporters concerned about "facts" in the police case be cautious that you are not taken for a ride by gossip and rumours, note Scott's own opinion and support him that way instead of becoming involved in endless regurgitation of doom with a hint of something new happening. 

Scott, his family, and core supporters need to be clear as to where his case stands, in the hope that things will be settled now, and if not now the fight will continue against a case that literally has been pulled apart right down to a hatch that couldn't be locked on a cabin from outside and where no durable evidence was produced to warrant a conviction on a boat that had a single mast instead of 2.

The Crown's case against Scott Watson wrecked.

                             The case against Scott Watson - credible or nonsense?

Following along from recent work on the nature of Scott's conviction to see how it could be reviewed by the Parole Board after the absolute weakness of the secret witness testimony from 2 prisoners was finally recognized, it strikes home how preposterous the case was against Scott. There is no strong evidence of Ben and Oliva going onto Scott's boat. The former evidence was supported by the 2 prisoners and the hair evidence, now, both are sunk.

Most people will know that there is evidence Scott returned to his own boat alone as the only passenger aboard the Anderson Naiad, following which, according to the Crown, he went back ashore with the Prosecutor saying it didn't matter how because it just happened even if the Crown could not explain the details. The first problem is Scott not being seen ashore a second time which remains a fatal difficulty. But let's think about the other known evidence.

Firstly, there is no contest Scott went back to the Blade alone. There is also no contest there is only one recorded event of him having returned to the raft up which the Blade was in with 2 other boats. Soon after, he was waking people on other boats asking for them to continue to drink with him and invited one woman to come aboard his sloop after her partner turned down the offer to party. He was smartly rebuffed.

Common sense says that Ben and Olivia cannot have been with him at that time, because he is required to go back ashore in the Crown case, because he has been turned down for both drinking or sleeping partners by others in the raft up. He would not have done that had the couple already been with him. That is the reason the Crown dreamed up the second trip after the Naiad driver Anderson said, and maintained under pressure that Scott was alone on a single trip to the raft up. So according to the Crown, he's gone back alone and failed to find anyone to drink with him or come aboard his own yacht so despite it being early morning he's gone back to shore - unseen this time.

Much was made of Scott's behaviour at Furneaux Lodge which he has said himself was obnoxious and probably not unlike a lot of other young men that night worse for wear from alcohol or smoking drugs. That being the case he was successfully blamed for inviting young women onto what he is alleged to have said, was the only ketch in the Bay that night to sail to Tonga according to witnesses. In fact, there were up to 3 ketches in the bay that night if you don't take into account the flat-bottomed Alliance as not being a ketch but rather a flat-bottomed barge. However, it was the skipper of one of the ketches, a married man, around Scott's build but older with tattoos, who was inviting the young ladies at the table to take the trip with him. 

He was also not a tall man but was with his wife and a friend that night playing on the pool table and one stage with students and young women. Out of earshot of his wife, the man invited the young ladies to sail to Tonga with him as being on the "only ketch in the Bay," the Toranui. which the man was not shy of mentioning by name. He was joking of course and most of the group saw that and later described the man differently than Scott, apart from one. She was the only one called to give that evidence.

There is no proof that the second trip was made but much proof of the alternative that Scott stayed on the Blade alone as you've already read above. Scott didn't have the couple locked on the Blade when he went to see others in the raft up, because how was going to take a female companion back to the Blade with Ben and Olivia already there, supposedly locked inside the cabin, which has since been agreed by Sir Panckhurst as impossible because the hatch only locked from the inside, another critical part of the case now dust.

Looking further at it, we must remember that Olivia was upset when her berth on the Tamarack was taken by non-paying freeloaders and left angrily with Ben to go back to the wharf and take another Naiad to what others say was a ketch, not a boat in raft up which with one look, and seeing it was only a single cabin sloop showed no concern that she had when going on the Tamarack among friends and finding her berth had been pinched.

As began soon after the investigation started a ketch had become a sloop with a lone man aboard possibly around the same time Scott was getting back to shore unseen and able to convince the young couple he had a sloop which they found out 10 minutes later was a lie still went aboard with him, and either waited silently as he went aboard other boats in the raft up or did not object to having been lied to and found themselves in a worse position than going aboard the Tamarack but made no noise about it to the Naiad driver Wallace, and meekly boarded.

Repeat they did not ask to be taken away when they saw the "ketch" was a sloop and the only people able to confirm the story of them leaving the naiad it was agreed by Crown witnesses were in the Wallace naiad, 2 remaining in the naiad while Ben and Olivia went aboard a ketch with a man never identified as Scott by having a ketch and not a sloop.

Reading the Panckhurst report there was a situation presented by which the defence was offered to have the investigation broadened in terms of the fresh evidence of Tony Kiernan. For reasons unknown, the defence turned that down, most probably because of the weakening of the entire case being enough for the RPOM to succeed but only time will reveal those reasons.

In summary, the emotion-rendering evidence of the prison witnesses held up the shortfalls in the hair evidence and vice versa. Now however both are weakened allowing the supposed second trip as unbelievable when standing on its own merits not confused by the hair evidence or claims about Scott's behaviour. With the full truth known the case was always weak but the propaganda, lies and dirty tricks enabled the Crown to have its day. Now it has nowhere to hide. So Scott did not return to the shore unseen only to come back with the couple, it's absolute nonsense that should never have been allowed to have been heard in a Court, just like the rest of the case.

Scott Watson: "The Price of Justice."

 

                                    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.