Scott Watson still guilty, court finds

Wednesday, 10 September 2025

Scott Watson will remain behind bars, and remains convicted of killing Olivia Hope and Ben Smart, after a court judgement released today.

In a stinging blow to Watson’s 27-year effort to prove he didn’t kill the friends at a New Year’s party in the Marlborough Sounds, the Court of Appeal has insisted his convictions are safe, and the jury got it right when finding him guilty.

The decision has left Watson’s family angry and determined to keep fighting to overturn his murder convictions.

Watson’s case is among the most controversial in New Zealand.

It was referred back to the Court of Appeal in 2020 because of concerns with forensic evidence, with the appeal heard in 2024.

After deliberating for 15 months, the Court today released its 291-page judgment, finding there had been no miscarriage of justice.

Watson’s lawyers say they have already been instructed to seek leave to appeal today’s decision to the Supreme Court.

Hope, 17, and Smart, 21, disappeared from Furneaux Lodge on January 1 1998. Their bodies have never been found.

Police quickly focused on Watson as the culprit, alleging he murdered the pair on his yacht, then dumped their bodies in Cook Strait.

The circumstantial case relied heavily on two hairs DNA matched to Hope that police said were found on Watson’s yacht; and an identification by water taxi driver Guy Wallace of Watson as the person last seen with Hope and Smart, as they climbed on to a mystery yacht.

Both strands of the police case were considered at the Court of Appeal hearing.

Watson’s lawyers challenged the handling and testing of the hairs linked to Hope, highlighting concerns the hairs had been mixed up and samples contaminated in the Environmental Science and Research (ESR) laboratory.

But the court dismissed this, saying that while ESR “generally adhered to quality standards required at the time”, contamination was “extremely unlikely”, and the evidence heard at trial about the hairs didn’t need to be reconsidered.

In relation to Guy Wallace’s identification of Watson from a contentious police montage as the man he ferried to the mystery yacht with Hope and Smart, the court said Wallace’s evidence remained reliable.

While several times explaining away inconsistencies on the basis of “the fallibility of people’s descriptions and identification evidence”, the Court deemed it could rely on Wallace’s identification of Watson four months after Hope and Smart went missing - despite Wallace insisting before and afterwards that Watson wasn’t the man on the water taxi.

It rejected the importance of the fact Wallace had already been shown a photo of Watson by police, and denied he was the mystery man, before making his crucial police montage identification.

The court also rebuked world-leading expert in identification evidence Gary Wells, and his colleague, Adele Quigley-McBride, who gave evidence at Watson’s appeal and concluded Wallace’s identification of Watson as the man on the water taxi was unreliable, saying much of the experts’ evidence did not withstand scrutiny.

It claimed the experts misrepresented evidence, relied on incomplete evidence, ignored other evidence, drew conclusions that were inappropriate, and gave evidence inconsistent with previous positions they had taken.

In one instance, the judges labelled the experts’ evidence “irresponsible”, and said they “descend into what can fairly be described as advocacy”.

The three Court of Appeal judges, Christine French, Susan Thomas, and Patricia Courtney, said despite “variations and discrepancies between descriptions”, they accepted Watson was the “lone man” seen onshore at Furneaux Lodge, and on the water taxi with Hope and Smart.

They preferred the Crown’s arguments, downplayed errors and misstatements in the investigation and trial, and ruled evidence from Watson’s experts inadmissible.

“Ultimately, the Crown presented a compelling circumstantial case to prove that only Mr Watson could have been the lone man who murdered Olivia and Ben,” the court concluded.

“The evidence was carefully presented, challenged, and subjected to submission and analysis.

“It was a fair trial.”

The Court of Appeal’s decision is the latest setback for Watson, who has always denied meeting Hope and Smart, let alone murdering them and disposing of their bodies, insisting he went back to his yacht alone, after the party.

He has now had two unsuccessful appeals to the Court of Appeal, been declined leave to appeal to the Privy Council and had an application for the Royal prerogative of mercy declined.

Watson has been in prison for 27 years and been denied parole four times.

In a statement released by police, the Hope and Smart families said the court’s decision was “an enormous relief for us, the families of our beloved Ben and Olivia.

“It affirms what we have always believed to be true - Mr Watson received a fair trial, and justice has been served.”

The families were grateful for the court’s careful examination of all aspects of the case.

“The court’s decision followed an exhaustive review of the evidence, including expert testimony on DNA analysis and eyewitness identification.

“This decision marks a significant moment in a case that has spanned almost three decades and has deeply affected our families.”

But the court’s decision was met with anger and frustration by Watson’s family, this morning.

His father, Chris Watson said it felt like the court was determined to nail the lid shut on a troublesome case and picked and chose evidence that supported the conclusion Watson was guilty.

“Am I angry? Yes, dammit. We’ve wasted years on this. A lot of people have done a lot of work and it’s just been disregarded for the safety of their conviction.

“They’ve gone to great lengths to smooth over any criticism of the case, and cast a prosecution light on it, and anything difficult they gloss over or say is fact.”

He pointed out that the Crown’s own expert had effectively agreed with the conclusions of Wells and Quigley-McBride on the unreliability of Guy Wallace’s identification, yet the court seemed willing to reject much of this.

Chris Watson had spoken with his son in prison, and said he was very disappointed.

“But I don’t think he expected a hell of a lot. He probably expected less than I do from these turkeys.

“He gets on with his life - or what life he’s got.”

Chris Watson said many cases from the 80s and 90s had been shown to be miscarriages of justice, and he felt the system simply didn’t want to admit to another mistake.

“My cynicism set in long ago. But we’ll give them another try, we’ll go the next step. Onwards and upwards.”

Watson’s sister, Sandy, was distraught at news of the court’s decision this morning.

“It’s just awful, it really is. This is just so devastating.”

“After all these years - it’s been 26 years tomorrow since he was convicted, and they’re still trying to bury him under a rock.”

She had spoken with her brother and worried it was becoming harder for him to deal with being in jail for something he insists he didn’t do.

“Because he’s been waiting for so long. Do they want him to die in there?”

Sandy Watson said she and the rest of their family had been living in limbo for nearly 30 years, but wouldn’t give up.

“No, you can’t, you can’t give up.”

But the fight was uneven, as police and the Crown had virtually unlimited resources to try to sustain a crumbling case.

The Post recently revealed police spent between $55,000 and $65,000 DNA testing hairs taken from Watson’s boat in 1998, in an effort to further link him with Hope and Smart.

The attempt failed, with none of the hairs being shown to contain Hope or Smart’s DNA, but some likely came from Watson, as expected.

Watson’s lawyers declined to comment, other than to confirm they had been instructed to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Police Assistant Commissioner Paul Basham welcomed today’s decision.

“The findings regarding two hairs presented at trial are of particular note, with the court saying the evidence was properly put before the jury and subject to challenge by the defence at the time.”

Deputy Solicitor-General Madeleine Laracy, who appeared for the Crown at Watson’s appeal, said the judgment was “very thorough and speaks for itself.

“Beyond that, we have no further comment. The parties were informed of the result yesterday and our thoughts are with the families at this time.”