Scott Watson granted leave to appeal to highest court
Tuesday, 10 March 2026
Convicted double murderer Scott Watson has been thrown a lifeline by the Supreme Court.
The country’s highest court has granted Watson leave to appeal a Court of Appeal decision, which upheld his convictions for murdering friends Ben Smart, 21, and Olivia Hope, 17, after a New Year’s party at Furneaux Lodge in the Marlborough Sounds, on January 1, 1998.
Their bodies have never been found, nor any trace of their belongings, but police quickly focused on Watson and said he murdered Hope and Smart on his yacht after inviting them on board, and then disposed of them in Cook Strait.
Read More:
Watson has always insisted he is innocent, but has spent nearly 28 years in prison - more than half his life - with his case being one of the most controversial in New Zealand history.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. The Parole Board has rejected his application for freedom five times since 2015.
His case was referred back to the Court of Appeal in 2020 because of concerns with evidence, with his appeal heard in 2024.
After deliberating for 15 months, in September 2025 the Court of Appeal released a 291-page judgment, finding there had been no miscarriage of justice.
However, this morning the Supreme Court allowed Watson to appeal this decision, but only on very limited grounds.
This relates to whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the decision by the trial judge to admit the visual identification evidence of witness Guy Wallace.
Wallace was the water-taxi driver who took Smart and Hope to a yacht with a mystery man who had offered them a place to sleep for the night.
He initially rejected Watson as the mystery man on the water-taxi, after being shown at least one photo, and a video of Watson.
But four months after Smart and Hope disappeared, Wallace chose Watson as the mystery man from a controversial police montage, and at Watson’s trial, he also identified Watson as being the man on the water taxi.
However, Wallace later retracted his identification, and said he felt he had helped send an innocent man to jail.
Wallace’s identification has long been a contentious factor in the case against Watson, and played a large part of Watson’s appeal in 2024.
The circumstantial case against Watson also relied heavily on two hairs DNA matched to Hope that police said were found on Watson’s yacht.
Watson’s lawyers had 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.
However, the Supreme Court has rejected Watson’s appeal on these grounds, and other matters raised by Watson’s lawyers.
This means only the limited ground of the Guy Wallace visual identification evidence will be allowed to be argued in front of the Supreme Court.
Watson’s father, Chris Watson, told The Post they were “happy to have a foot in the door” with the Supreme Court, and that it had accepted the most important issue to review and consider.
He said there had always been serious misgivings about the way Wallace identified Watson from a police montage, including the use of a contentious photo taken when Watson appeared to be blinking.
Chris Watson said his son had been continually knocked back and disappointed by decisions from judges, but he remained hopeful the Supreme Court would see how unreliable the evidence against his son was.
This morning, Watson’s lawyers Nick Chisnall, KC, and Kerry Cook, said they had no comment to make, given the matter was before the Supreme Court.
In their decision last year, 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.”
In a statement released by police, the Hope and Smart families said the Court of Appeal’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.”