Faeces, fights and psychologists: Inside Scott Watson’s six hour parole hearing
Thursday, 13 March 2025
Convicted double murderer Scott Watson sat quietly in a grey tracksuit for more than six hours, only sometimes whispering to his lawyer as he made another bid for freedom after spending nearly three decades behind bars.
Whether his bid for freedom has been successful or not is still unknown, but some of his behaviour behind bars has been revealed, including incidents where he threw faeces at a fellow inmate, outed child sex offenders and as recent as June last year had what he described as a “playfight” with a prisoner.
Stuff was granted access to attend Watson’s parole hearing on Wednesday where four separate psychologists were questioned at length about the man who still rejects his conviction.
Watson has always denied killing Marlborough friends Olivia Hope and Ben Smart in January 1998.
Hope, 17, and Smart, 21, disappeared after attending a party at Furneaux Lodge in the Marlborough Sounds on New Year’s Day, 1998. Their bodies have never been found.
Waston was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2000 and has been denied parole several times since becoming eligible. Last year he also appealed his convictions at the Court of Appeal, with lawyers arguing 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.
At the start of the hearing, Watson’s lawyer, Kerry Cook, told panel convenor Sir Ron Young he was seeking for the now 53-year-old to be released on parole with residential restrictions and exclusion zones.
The six hour hearing ran over time and also ran out of time, with Young saying, regrettably, they had not had a chance to hear from Watson and the lawyers would have to file closing submissions.
Young retires from the board on March 31, meaning a decision needs to be delivered before then.
“I don’t want to declare today a waste of time,” Young said.
Four psychologists - four opinions
At Watson’s last parole hearing in May 2024, Young questioned why various psychological reports differed in their findings over Watson’s risk of reoffending.
A report in November 2021 found Watson was at high to very high risk of reoffending, while a Department of Corrections psychological report in September 2023 assessed him as being at medium risk of reoffending. A recent private psychological report assessed him as low risk.
The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing was to hear from the psychologists themselves. They answered questions from the Department of Corrections’ lawyer, Claire Boshier, Watson’s lawyer and the board.
None of the psychologists can be identified.
The first psychologist to give evidence was the one who assessed Watson in 2021.
He told Boshier Watson showed a lack of responsibility, lack or remorse and had a sense of self-entitlement.
“There was no comment about the fact two people have lost their lives or the impact of that loss.”
The psychologist also highlighted some of Watson’s behaviour in prison over the years and how he didn’t acknowledge the harm he had caused.
The psychologist said Watson had outed people in his unit who were convicted child sex offenders, and had thrown faeces at someone he had a disagreement with.
“It is hard to get specific details from Mr Watson… he doesn’t like to talk in depth about his motivations for his behaviour. Superficial explanation for those things… if he’s unhappy about an interaction or feels like someone has slighted him, he will retaliate in a nasty manner.”
In regards to the fight with an inmate in June 2024, the psychologist said usually people decrease in risk due to their age.
“If Mr Watson has engaged in a physical violent assault of someone in June… it would not suggest he is frail or feeble in any way and still capable of behaving in a violent manner.”
In 2021 the psychologist still assessed Watson as “high risk”.
The second psychologist assessed Watson towards the end of 2023 and had slightly differing opinions. At the time of her assessment, Watson’s convictions were under active appeal and therefore she considered his behaviour in prison. She considered him to be of “medium risk” of violent reoffending.
She felt a lot of previous evidence about Watson was historical and a lot of weighting had been given to the denial of the murders. She questioned whether Watson may be neurodivergent and on the autistic spectrum given the way he presented.
Kerry asked the psychologist whether how Watson maintained his innocence in relation to the murders could be a protective factor in terms of future risk of offending.
“I wouldn’t call it a protective factor. But I wouldn’t consider it a risk factor,” she replied.
She also agreed with Kerry that misconduct in prison could be due to a prison survival mentality.
Under questioning from board member Alan Hackney, the psychologist was asked why she thought in a 2024 memo that Watson could be managed in the community.
“At that time in my 2023 report Mr Watson hadn’t engaged in the treatment I’d recommended about the safety plan… at the time of my opinion report Mr Watson was already engaged in the individual treatment.”
However, under questioning from Sir Young, she accepted she probably shouldn’t have worded her opinion like that in 2024 given she’d not seen the safety plan.
The third psychologist saw Watson towards the end of 2024.
She told the board Watson appeared to be adaptable to his context and situation and how his time in prison at 19 (unrelated to the murders) had formed several significant belief systems.
The psychologist said Watson was not a diagnosed psychopath but had some similar traits, such as not taking responsibility for his actions and using lying and manipulation to meet his needs.
She said that if Watson feels like he’s under stress, feeling looked down on or not valued, his defensiveness escalates. But the challenge was that he has not been able to elaborate on the drivers for his behaviour.
In December 2023, Watson began having one on one sessions and completed some 20 sessions and had made some progress.
Boshier asked, however, if Watson would still be considered “untreated”.
“I think overall I would consider further intervention with psychological services would mitigate any future risk he posses,” the psychologist said.
“The propensity to use violence in a certain set of circumstances does remain and the more he can explore that and build the skills to mitigate that and get help from his support people that would give us greater confidence in release.”
The psychologist was of the opinion “quite a few things need to happen before a safe release”. She suggested more psychologist sessions and a gradual reintegrated pathway where he could have test situations.
The fourth and last psychologist to give evidence was one Watson had privately engaged. She never met with him but read the various reports and also said she read media reports about him.
She said from the file notes it appeared Watson’s behaviour in prison seemed to be reactive and aggressive up until 2004 where there seemed to be a calming, a time where he began preferring his own company.
The psychologist said she hadn’t ignored the misconduct of outing child sex offenders and throwing faeces.
The June 2024 misconduct also coincided with his Court of Appeal hearing.
Overall, she said Watson didn’t have behavioural problems at his prison job where he was organised and had a high-work ethic.
“From my experience working in corrections and within criminal justice for the past 20 years… I’ve never really seen anybody with such a robust community support,” she said.
The first year out of prison is often the “most shaky,” especially after long-term imprisonment, which is why community support is vital, the psychologist said.
She went on to say Watson’s circle of support has been there a long time and they wanted him to succeed.
“I struggle to see what more can be done… if it’s risk of murder… very unlikely. If it is risk of violence, what kind of violence… saying something inappropriate or more verbal aggression rather than physical. What are we managing?” the psychologist asked.
After more than six hours of evidence from the four psychologists, Sir Ron Young had to stop the hearing and asked the lawyers to file their closing submissions so the board could release a decision before March 31.
Sir Young said there may be potential for another hearing before then.