Another one bites the Dust

          

                                            Head in the Sand Syndrome?

Today was the news that police Commissioner Richard Chambers is being investigated over allegations of sexual impropriety. The Minister of Police has expressed faith in him, in the same way these things generally progress. Ironically, I wrote to both men recently complaining about 105 recorded ketch sightings in the Watson case. I had a generic response from the Commissioner's office from nothing from the Minister's office and nothing more.

I think this indicates the very thing that is wrong in the relationship between both offices, they have routine avoidance tactics to evade public concern that we've seen rolled out before. It happened 20 years ago when the police minister Judith Collins commented about the first Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM) Application into the Watson case - saying as (an expert, obviously) that the rejection of the RPOM was because the 2 hair evidence was sound.

Currently, the Watson case is getting some attention behind the scenes, there is an apparent block put on new evidence by his Counsel who say it can't go to the Supreme Court (SC) because there was a ruling on that by the SC which if it is true I haven't been able to find. They did, however, at least one of them - that is, say if the case failed at the Supreme Court it could go straight to the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) about which I pointed out the obvious that the CCRC is deep trouble without a significant decision since its inception and key people resigning from its ranks.

To me, it seems numerous people are not doing their jobs. No inquiry underway that I'm aware of about the ketch sightings - and what easy investigation that would be. And the SC apparently not willing to hear the critical Mapua evidence - which has now been with Defence Counsel for 8 years.

I can say that the Mapua evidence is the most critical evidence in the case, it came from reliable witnesses who were ignored by police, just like the Commissioner and Minister of Police and previous Minister of Justice ignored critical evidence. Well, is it critical evidence? Yes, it shows witness evidence of Ben and Olivia being alive in Mapua - something commented on by now Judge Krebs that, which if true, Scott Watson is innocent. You can say that again, and add that no one in officialdom seems to want to know. Looking at the major cases here, if the record is correct, neither Lundy, Watson or the Tamihere case have ever withstood scrutiny and all 3 had prisoner witness evidence - any surprise?

The CCRC record so far:

The "Mr G" Case (First Referral): The CCRC's historic first referral involved a young refugee man (referred to as Mr G) who had been convicted of several offences in 2001. The CCRC discovered that a court clerical error had recorded his age as 17 when he was actually a 15-year-old minor. As a result of this investigation, he was wrongly sent to an adult prison. Following the CCRC's intervention, the High Court formally quashed his sentence. [1, 2, 3]

The Focus on Vulnerable People: A second early referral also involved a minor sent to an adult prison due to a birthdate mix-up. The Commission has publicly noted that cases involving the systemic mistreatment of vulnerable individuals, youth, and refugees remain a primary operational focus. [1, 2]

The Broader Caseload: High-profile applicants who have historically sought reviews from the commission include high-profile names like Mark Lundy, Scott Watson, and David Tamihere. While the CCRC has processed more than 550 applications and fully closed over 310 inquiries, the vast majority are concluded without referral because they do not meet the strict statutory definitions of an unaddressed miscarriage of justice. [1, 2, 3]