Scott Watson appeal: Final words at contentious hearing
Friday, 14 June 2024
Was it a ketch? Was it a small sloop?
Was the man short-haired or long haired?
Was he clean-shaven or carrying several days’ stubble?
Did Scott Watson go back to his boat at 2am, or 4am? Or both?
All these issues have been raised this week, as Scott Watson appealed his convictions for murdering Olivia Hope and Ben Smart after a New Year’s party in the Marlborough Sounds, in 1998.
But there’s really only question people want answered.
Did he do it?
Did Scott Watson lure Hope, 17, and Smart, 21, on board his yacht, abduct them, kill them, then dump their bodies at sea?
The visceral, often gut-level split over Watson’s guilt or innocence was on display as soon as you walked into Wellington’s Court of Appeal.
On your right was a row of seats reserved for police and the sisters of Ben Smart – Rebecca and Annabel.
In front of them, were the five Crown lawyers arguing Watson’s conviction was safe, trustworthy, and needn’t be tampered with.
On your left, were Scott Watson’s father, Chris, brother, Tom, other family members, and supporters.
Beyond them, were Watson’s four lawyers, who argued the case against him had been so fundamentally undermined, it had effectively crumbled.
The three judges stared down on this division.
The court was effectively split.
And so is the country, it seems, on whether Watson is undeniably guilty of one of New Zealand’s worst murders, or whether the wrong man has spent 26 years in prison, due to a tunnel-visioned and bungled police investigation.
The fact the case is still being debated and fiercely fought over, more than a quarter of a century after Hope and Smart disappeared, points to the ceaseless controversy surrounding the verdict.
It also hints at the malleability of memory; fickle recollection; the impossibility of finding precision amidst 1500 party-goers intent on celebration, not flawless recall.
And this week’s appeal has been studded with those unhelpfully conflicting witness testimonies on appearance, times, locations, and identity.
On Friday, Crown Lawyer Madeleine Laracy picked her way through the often-confused evidence, to outline the scenario that led to Watson being convicted.
She emphasised the characteristics the killer would have required: male; alone; a stranger to the victims; a pre-existing murderous intent; a yacht in Endeavour Inlet in a relevant location; and being at Furneaux Lodge when the water-taxi that Hope and Smart eventually boarded was leaving shore.
Laracy said when looked at fairly and in totality, only Scott Watson fitted those criteria.
And she stressed the Crown case against Watson didn’t just rest on the two main pieces of evidence being challenged by Watson at this appeal – the identification of Watson by the key eyewitness, water-taxi driver Guy Wallace; and the reliability of the handling and testing of two hairs found on Watson’s yacht that were linked by DNA to Hope.
Supporting that, she pointed to Watson allegedly lying about his movements on New Year’s Day; painting the cabin sides of his yacht soon after; cleaning the yacht’s interior; the evidence of two prison informants who claimed Watson confessed to them; and the fact police insist they couldn’t find the shirt Watson wore at Furneaux Lodge.
Watson had the opportunity and inclination to kill Hope and Smart, and the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to him, Laracy said.
In response, Watson’s lawyer Nick Chisnall, KC, returned to a central theme of the appeal, that the critical identification by Guy Wallace of Scott Watson as the man he delivered to a yacht with Hope and Smart, was terminally tainted.
This occurred on at least three occasions: when Wallace was shown a photo of Watson very early in the investigation; when he was told Watson was suspected of the murders during an interview with Detective Tom Fitzgerald; and when media showed Wallace a video of Watson.
At each point, Wallace denied Watson was the man on board the water-taxi, or that he had any connection with him.
But nearly four months after Hope and Smart vanished, Wallace picked Watson from a police photo montage as being most like the mystery man, and repeated this at trial.
Wallace subsequently recanted this identification, and said he felt he’d helped send an innocent man to prison.
“Here, there were serious and repeated influencing behaviours by police that in my submission can not be denied,” Chisnall said.
He noted that all other evidence Wallace gave – of the mystery yacht, his description and compusketch of the mystery man, and his early non-identifications of Watson – pointed away from Watson.
The result was that the case against Watson had been so significantly undermined, his conviction should be quashed, and he should not be retried, Chisnall said.
“Finality is important. But if ever there was a case that required the closest of scrutiny about the safety of the verdicts, this is it.”
At the end of proceedings, Justice Christine French acknowledged the presence of those affected by the case, including Watson’s family.
“This is a very important matter for you, and Mr Scott Watson. “And of course, there are another set of families for whom this case is of huge importance.”
Justice French said she couldn’t give any precise indication when they would deliver a judgment in the appeal, but said it would be months, not weeks.
“Obviously we want to get this right, and that’s going to take a considerable time.
“I know that will be disappointing, but there is a lot of material to get through, and, of course, this is very, very important.”
Saturday will mark 26 years since Watson was arrested at the Rangiora home of his brother, Tom Watson, who has been in court all week. Watson has been in prison ever since.
Tom Watson said he was pleased with the arguments raised at the appeal, particularly the Wallace identification and hair evidence.
“Because those two issues are the two things that will knock the case over.”
Watson’s father, Chris Watson, thanked family members, lawyers and supporters, who had got the case back to court.
He said they had already waited a long time for justice, so were prepared to wait a little longer.
“As long as it takes. We’ll just have to wait and see.”