Watson's criminal convictions and other prejudicial allegations regarding his character - most of which would never form part of the prosecution case - became widely known among most journalists covering Operation Tam.

Cate Brett /  Control of the Crime Story / Free Speech vs Fair Trial

2 Dash Street

Waimate   7924

South Canterbury

Hon. Simon Power

Minister of Justice

Freepost Parliament,

Private Bag 18 888,

Parliament Buildings

Wellington 6160

Dear Minister

I am contacting you regarding the case of R v Watson.

I have seen the documentary “Murder on the Blade?” dir. Mr. Keith Hunter, and have read articles and books about the case, including: “Trial by trickery” by Mr. Hunter, “the Marlborough mystery” by Mike Kalaugher, and “Ben & Olivia: what really happened” by Jayson Rhodes and Ian Wishart, also Silent Evidence by John Goulter (on secondment from the office of the RT Hon Jenny Shipley PM) . I am convinced that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice in the case of R v Watson; in my view, Mr. Scott Watson is innocent of the murders of Mr. Ben Smart and Miss Olivia Hope, and is therefore wrongfully imprisoned.

To say that there is considerable public disquiet about this case is an understatement considering the length of time taken to do a relatively simple police investigation into a complaint laid by Mr. Chris Watson. Four years is nothing more that a disgrace and the final outcome was as it was going to be on day one of the investigation, a whitewash and not even factually correct. The so called IPCA has still not completed its investigation yet one can only presume it too is having trouble getting a whitewash to stick.

The disgrace is that New Zealand has no Anti Corruption investigation body to investigate corruption of any kind. That is simply not good enough for a country that prides itself on being corruption free but the simple fact is we don’t know it its true or not when some one simply ticks a box No Corruption and sends off the questionnaire to the relevant international body, Amnesty International does not rate New Zealand so highly though.

Back to Mr Watson I believe the Executive Council should do as Sir Robert Muldoon and the Executive Council of the time did in R v Thomas and order the release of Mr Watson and hold a Royal Commission into the investigation and prosecution of Mr Watson with a retired Jurist of the stature of Mr Justice Taylor of the NSW High Court.  But this time actually implement the recommendations of the Commission unlike last time where the Police Officer found as a fact to have planted evidence was granted an award for his work on the case. What could be worse, a criminal act, or an award for a criminal act.       

   
Mr. Hunter’s website http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz features a guestbook, in which numerous people have expressed concerns about Mr. Watson still being in prison, despite the overwhelming arguments for his innocence. Clearly, many people are profoundly disturbed by this travesty of justice. Mr. Hunter has posted his correspondence with you on his website. Therefore, I am aware that you have been provided with information that demonstrates Mr. Watson’s innocence. No doubt, you are also familiar with the comprehensive, cogent arguments for Mr. Watson’s innocence that Mr. Hunter puts forth in “Trial by trickery” and “Murder on the Blade?”

As Mr. Hunter has asked in his letters to you, I respectfully request that you and your Ministry act swiftly concerning Mr. Watson’s petition to the Governor General. Urgent action is essential, given that Mr. Watson is evidently innocent and has been wrongfully imprisoned for a decade.

The last Government dragged its heels over this matter and in fact promoted the Officer in Charge to Deputy Commissioner of Police knowing there was a criminal investigate into his conduct going on. This made it very obvious that the last government were not concerned if Officers sworn to uphold the law on the face of it broke the law they were sworn to uphold. I hope that is not going to be the attitude of the new government, but sadly it does not appear that this government is going to be any better than any predecessors. High profile cases  need to be seen as squeaky clean  but this is not the case,  with Peter Ellis,  John Barlow,  Mark Lundy, John Tamahere among those that have large question marks still hanging over them.

Policing and justice  are at the heart of  democracy and if this heart is not functioning well society suffers and respect for law and order diminishes.  It is not hard to see the lack of respect for both police and justice in our society.  Both must be squeaky clean fast and mistake free,  I know these are high ideals but mediocrity seems to be the accepted standard  for Police, Justice  and Corrections.  Three of the most important services in society appear to adhere to the maxim that if they delay, procrastinate and generally mess complainants around they will give up of frustration.  The delays to the internal police investigation into complains by Mt Chris Watson were totally unacceptable and the excuses given as plausible as the discovery of hens teeth.  I have no doubt at all the delays were deliberate and planned. The IPCA investigation is no better, complaints have been before it for two years and still no result. That they will clear the police of any wrong doing is a fore gone conclusion anyway so in reality complaining is an exercise in futility. The last police officer found to have seriously perverted the course of justice by planting evidence were given an award for his work and promoted (R v Thomas).

Until  the government accept as a fact that there is corruption in the system and takes serious action to stamp it out, respect for police and the judicial system  will continue it downward slide.  Until Police admit their mistakes and take steps to correct them the young will treat them as a joke saying one thing and doing another. Until the judiciary use the range of sentences available to them the law will be treated as an ass.

Until those at the bottom of the ladder are treated with the same leniency as the rich and wealthy there will be no respect for the law. There is two laws and I don’t mean canon and common, I mean one for the rich and famous and one for the rest of society.  I urge you to take the bull by the horns spend some money even in this time of recession and set up a Royal Commission into corruption within the law making and enforcement section of society with powers to really dig into the dark corners. If it finds nothing wonderful but if it does uncover hidden secrets at least measures can be taken to correct the problems.  What does need to be investigated is the convictions entered in some of the high profile cases over the last 15 years.  Were shortcuts taken? Were all leads followed?  Were all the dots connected?  Did the police and prosecution act in good faith?  Was disclosure complete and timely?  Were those appearing for the Crown completely honest in their duty to the Crown?  Did they adopt their duty as ministers of justice or did they go into court to win at any cost?  One has stated in an interview that he goes into court to win and hates losing, is that attitude acceptable?    

To compound the issue further  I am drawn inevitably to the conclusion that the government does not intend to do anything to ensure justice is done in R v Watson.  I have no doubt Ms Kristy McDonald QC is an able and accomplished Solicitor but her past employment surely calls into question her ability to be seen as being completely impartial. Her brief calls upon her to question the honesty and integrity of her employers past, present and future.  She has been a Crown Prosecutor and now is expected to question her past employer, the  then Deputy Solicitor General (Prosecutions),  her present employer’s deputy,  Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope  deputy to Commissioner of Police Broad.  Her brief is also to question the integrity of present and past Crown Prosecutors as well as members of the Judiciary now deceased or sitting on the Supreme Court. I believe this is either a hospital pass or as seems much more likely it is intended the result is that no action is to be taken and all will be exonerated completely perhaps a medal or two and Scott Watson remain in prison with out hope of release for the rest of his life as he refuses to admit guilt as did Peter Ellis serve his full sentence.

New Zealand’s record on police, prosecutorial and judicial integrity is at stake.  We lag far behind the world already,  change is way overdue but no one seems to have the intestinal fortitude to say enough is enough lets fix this thing,  Justice Taylor  in his inquiry into the conviction of Arthur Allan Thomas  made a number of very sound recommendations  of which two were sort of implemented in a very watered  down version the PCA Act and Evidence Act.  The PCA Act  and it successor were notable for their failure to address the problem of public perception of rubber stamps of internal reviews.       

Thank you for taking the time to  read  this,  I am firmly of the view that we do have a police force that is  95%  honest and hard working in very trying conditions but the group norm is self protection and inward looking, and determined to keep prying eyes out. Invariably internal inquiries if they do find a fault downplay it and assure all and sundry the ‘problem’ has been fixed.   

Group Norms can be changed and this is a group norm that urgently needs changed, A study of the life of Sir Ed Hillary will reveal his part in breaking a ‘group norm’ on the Waitaki Hydro Dam Project. 

We have a prosecution system that is, at times blatantly dishonest, and often not forthcoming with disclosure until pushed and worst of all is there to win a conviction. Somewhere the concept of truth being part of justice has been lost and the system has become trial by lie and trickery.  Evidence is corrupted by both sides and the judge who is there to ensure justice and truth win out is more concerned with rules.  Witnesses swear to tell the truth only to hear council take their truth and twist it around into a blatant lie.  Appeals about matters of fact are useless as the Court of Appeal has made it clear it does not want to know about facts being misstated as long as the misstatement was done “By The Rules” it is irrelevant that the Appellant is innocent. [ R v Thomas . R v Dougherty.]  Yet the guilty can go free if a rule was broken, that in my humble submission is plain stupid and contrary to truth and justice.

Yours faithfully




Lindsay R. Kennard

Cc: Mr. Chris and Bev Watson (by email)
Mr. Keith Hunter (by email)
Rt Hon John Key

Hon. Peter Dunne
Hon. Rodney Hide

Hon. Anne Tolley

From the Ministry of Justice website

Welcome to the Ministry of Justice, Tāhū o te Ture Our vision is to deliver first class justice services to New Zealand. On this site you will find information about the Ministry of Justice, our services, courts and tribunals and the wide range of work we undertake to support a safe and just society for New Zealand.

 

<1> In Westpac v Savin [1985]2 NZLR 41, 50 Justice Sir Ivor Richardson said “A fiduciary owes duties of loyalty and fidelity. The fiduciary must act with absolute fairness and openness to his client. He must not place himself in a position where his duty and interest conflict . . . It follows that the fiduciary must not without the informed consent of his client stand  to receive any benefit other than his professional remuneration from the transaction which he is retained to carry through… [W]here a fiduciary fails in his obligation to make full disclosure of material facts he cannot be heard to maintain that disclosure would not have altered the decision to proceed with the transaction….” 

And

The legal definition of benefit) n. any profit or acquired right or privilege, primarily through a contract whether real or not. This can include future work or pleasure.     

In Merch Sharpe and Dohme (New Zealand Ltd) and others v Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd and Smith Kline Beecham (NZ) Ltd CP 23/96 Wellington Registry. Reason for Judgement dated 7 June1996 page 3  Justice  Galleen said  “ [The] depth and importance of the solicitor/client relationship [between Smith Kline Beecham Ltd and Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartlett & Co] and it is important to observe at this stage that leaving aside specific matters, the relationship was such that it must have give rise in general terms to a considerable knowledge of the nature of the second defendant, the way in which it did business, the attitudes and outlooks of its employees and in what is accepted by all the parties to be a highly competitive sector of the business community with is position vis a vis its competitors in terms of its organisational structure and products.”   Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartlett & Co had been sole solicitors to Smith Kline Beecham Ltd for many years but were hired by the plaintiffs to act against their former clients. Four days were spent in the Wellington High Court as they fought for the right to act against their former clients.

In many ways there seems to me to be a strong parallel between that case decision and Ms McDonald who has acted for the Crown Law, MOJ and police and is now expected to act in the interest of Scott Watson,  It is just that the knowledge she has could be used to disadvantage Scott

This is based on Mr Orr’s assurance that Ms McDonald is working for Scott Watson in his letter to Keith Hunter