Dated 3/4/25
Her Excellency: The Rt Hon Dame Cindy Kiro Governor General
PS please delete my earlier email, it was a rushed effort before heading
to work. My apologies for that and may I have an acknowledgement of receipt of
this email please.
I make this request under the Royal Prerogative of
Mercy Statute S 406 of the Crimes Act.
The background here is that in 2017 I applied for what was a successful
Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy for serving prisoner Scott Watson.
The application was made to your predecessor Dame Patsy Reddy. The reviewer
appointed was Sir Graham Panckhurst KC.
I had been premature with the application submission largely because of
the enthusiasm of Mr Watson, whom I have only met once after I sent him a draft
of the final document, to have it submitted. But more importantly later,
because of an abundance of fresh information regarding the case which resulted
in further exculpatory material from members of the public whose contact
details I was given, or who contacted me post the submission and later its
outcome. There were others I contacted directly resulting from information from
the file as well as new information provided voluntarily.
When that additional information was completed, I took it to now Judge
Jonathan Krebs, then practising privately, who having read it commented that
particular information around a ketch having been sighted at Mapua in the South
Island on the 3rd of January 1998, meant that Scott must be innocent because
the foundation of the Crown case was that the missing couple, Ben Smart and
Olivia Hope, had been determined by police and the prosecution to have been
killed on January the 1st. There are several affidavits in support of the Mapua
sighting including from the equivalent to (withheld) who was tipped off (by a
local business) about the ketch being tied up at the wharf and others who had
seen it with the couple aboard after they were said to be dead by the Crown. The
(withheld) chatted with the crew on the ketch tied up at the wharf. When
returning home he made the effort to ring police which he explains in his
affidavit.
For some reason, I was not sent a copy of Sir Graham’s written response
to the RPOM until approx. 2 years after the announcement was made that
his finding was that the case was to be sent back to the Court of Appeal. In
those passing years, I often wondered why Scott had not been pardoned as the
Mapua evidence I believed was crucial. Later, I became concerned that Sir
Graham had not seen the additional evidence, and remain unsure why.
On a careful reading of Sir Graham’s finding there were significant
things found in Scott’s favour, the 2 prisoner witnesses’ testimony was
rejected. The Crown claim that the couple were able to be locked in the cabin
was finally exposed as an impossibility because the Lock was on the inner side
of the hatch. And also that scratches made on the inner side of the hatch could
not have been made by the couple because the scratches extended past the point,
where if the hatch was closed, they could not have reached the outer edge.
There was evidence at the trial of the children of Mr Watson’s sister doing
that damage months earlier, which along with Sir Graham’s observations was
destructive to the Crown case and the claim by the Prosecutor, (Now Judge
Davison of the High Court), that it didn’t matter how Watson got back to the
shore after being returned to his boat alone – the fact was, according to
Davison, just that Watson did - and it was unimportant how. He quite properly
may have been relying on the accounts of those in charge of gathering and
storing evidence while later removing exculpatory material from the file. I
expect in the fullness of time criminal charges will be laid for that with
other examples in the latest evidence which will also warrant investigation.
It must be hard for Mr Watson to know all this “new” material is at hand
but it apparently has no significance to his release on Parole as the case
continues to wind through the Courts.
This situation appears as a disastrous failure in the system which has
seen what will turn out, like others before him, to be innocent prisoners held
for years, even decades longer, than those properly convicted of similar
crimes. Neither the Parole Board nor Corrections seem to have a satisfactory
method with which to deal with the few in the system who claim at great cost to
themselves and their families, to be innocent.
I write to you in confidence that Mr Watson has the proof of his
innocence, part of which could not be heard at the COA because I understand
possibly that it was outside the scope of the RPOM findings. Furthermore, Mr
Watson struggles to be paroled on what is outdated or superseded material on
his file relating to the murders alleged against him. Whilst Sir Graham
dismissed the 2 Watson prisoner secret witnesses accounts, I understand their
evidence remains part of the case against Mr Watson’s parole – if not still
directly, possibly floating in the minds of the earliest psychologists who put
pen to paper regarding assessments of Mr Watson and his prison behaviour. I
have correspondence which shows Corrections were unaware of the 2 primary
Witness's evidence being set aside, the 2 witness's evidence does not even have
the basics of matching – something it was implied Mr Watson was responsible for
as well.
My understanding of the working of an RPOM application was from a
description given by a celebrated Privy Councillor, Lord Diplock, who said that
where Justice stops the RPOM (mercy) begins. Could you please intervene in Mr
Watson’s case by seeking either Sir Graham or another such person to look at
the material that did not reach him when he considered Scott Watson’s RPOM, or
recommend any such other act that binds Crown officials such as a special
investigator to look at matters around the Watson file being cleansed of
exculpatory material – photos are gone, and solid citizens indicate their
statements were changed when later they were forwarded to them. Doing so would
set a clear precedent as to where the Justice stopped in this particular case.
Secondly, would you seek that neutral consideration is given to Scott Watson
(and others like him protesting innocence) the small dignity of Parole Boards
and Corrections accepting certain prisoners who with some strong basis of pleas
for innocence are not kept longer in prison than the guilty because they do not
admit their guilt. There is no advantage for a long term prisoner to take the
route of claiming innocence, because it most likely will increase their time
spent in prison on occasion as we have seen by decades. It must be very few
prisoners, who would consider that, apart from the innocent. Whilst clearly it
is inevitable that some innocent prisoners have in vernacular terms, just
“copped it” to ensure being released.
As it is, you already have on your files that Mr Watson has given me
permission to represent his pleas for the ROPM. I expect you will have no
objections to me letting his Counsel know, along with the public in due course
the details of this matter. On your advice, I will submit the further
exculpatory material files not seen by Sir Graeme or indeed Corrections or you
may seek them directly from his Lawyers who are likely to have further
additions to it.
I have used RPOM 3 for the subject matter here. Please see below the
link to the radio interview with the former Chair of the NZ Parole Board Ron
Young in which Mr Young frankly says the Parole Board treat everyone as guilty.
Yours sincerely
Brian McDonald
PS please excuse again the mis-drafted earlier email.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rnz.co.nz%2Fnational%2Fprogrammes%2Fninetonoon%2Faudio%2F2018981321%2Fretiring-parole-board-chair-on-how-the-prison-system-is-working%3Ffbclid%3DIwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2j7_1hFtrIiz0j33IzgP0LuQL7ew8X31j5U2sTmDo31CUtO0vfyTt6GPs_aem_VU7i0Mk-bR6Au3tkryv2Ug&h=AT2dDLpXTSivTFJDn2G0yY01Byz8oYEUfK-phQpjKQ4uwBv49KaN88ZFuMj6PFv4oPBugzcF0YIIUj26RQJPsnD_UrZl_3jIX-LkVEqxBfplLp9PbwqTxszbF3zl_Rq2c5AH61jKFk6sjMUO&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT0wFGRU44jcObM61SGR7L4NkggslBsYC0RAPAOR9zP5tt1uAtJdpGB-LrkUAJ1UavDWGv9SmTBghhJ289haaI0wrXNPhaHLmgVCxXTjYsR2crlR0RtfO8P6AopwmQRdiPRxGzmAqiPOAg13SExD61tQc3_l4ZonsYgvFwf1ZQhqX9HNHPX47jLZcRlcZOu2iixaI2VBnVmon1aMDPZ7gSpEwR-_
No comments:
Post a Comment