KEY POINTS:
Argument and debate are at the heart of a free press. So the decision of the New Zealand Listener to add its voice to the growing discussion about the Scott Watson conviction is a welcome one.
In its most recent issue, the current-affairs magazine purports to present "the
compelling evidence" that Watson did, in fact, murder Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, 10 years ago this week. But the two interviewees in the magazine's cover story - Paul Davison QC who led the Crown case and Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope who, as a detective inspector, headed the investigation into the so-called Sounds Murders - are far from convincing.
They fail to address - indeed they choose completely to ignore - new evidence raised since the trial, much of it in Keith Hunter's disturbing book Trial by Trickery. Little wonder: Pope has not read it it and Davison says that he has read only the parts of it that directly refer to him.
This news is as dispiriting as it is disquieting. For whether Pope or Davison like it or not, it is the justice system on trial here. Hunter, North & South magazine and this newspaper are the voices of a widespread public disquiet. The least the Crown, as represented by these two, might do is peruse the case, rather than ignoring it in the hope that it will go away.
Yet ignore it they do. Both commit the logical fallacy known as "begging the question", by saying, in essence, that Watson is the killer because he was found guilty. Try telling that to Arthur Allan Thomas.
Further, they seek to disqualify any critic of the verdict who did not sit on the jury. "The only opinions that matter," Davison tells the Listener, "are those of the 12 jurors."
Yet elsewhere Davison allows - referring to the David Bain case - that "it's a healthy aspect of our society that a citizen can challenge a conviction" and that "there are instances of people being wrongly convicted."
He may not have it both ways: either the jurors who enter a verdict are the only people whose opinions count, or citizens may - indeed should - challenge convictions that appear to be unsafe. Davison knows that some people acquitted are not innocent. The irrefutable corollary is that not all those convicted have done what they have been found guilty of.
The issue here is not guilt or innocence but the reliability of the conviction. As we report today, Watson's defence counsel Greg King and Mike Antunovic are preparing to file a petition to the Governor-General who, in consultation with the Ministry of Justice, can recommend that Watson be pardoned or that the case be referred back to the Court of Appeal. They want to present to the court at least five pieces of new evidence - including retractions of testimony by three key witnesses. They want the chance to argue that this evidence, had it been presented to the jury, could very well have produced a different result. It is the same basis on which Bain's appeal to the Privy Council was allowed and it is no less valid in this case.
The thrust of Davison's and Pope's argument is that it must have been Watson who killed Hope and Smart because it couldn't have been anyone else. But that's not good enough. Both men brush aside legitimate questions about a matter of profound importance. They resort to the hoary old trick of suggesting the whole matter is a media beat-up - a particularly rich suggestion given the tactical use of the media Pope engaged in during the investigation. Neither addresses the many disquieting implications of any of the new evidence or of the many other issues raised by Hunter.
Extraordinarily, Davison commends the Listener for seeking out the police and Crown case. The Herald on Sunday did actually summarise the cases for and against Watson several weeks ago but, for the record, the newspaper has made repeated approaches to Pope, seeking an interview and offering him a chance to respond. That offer remains open.
