Scott Watson at the High Court in Christchurch in 2015. Photo / John Kirk-Anderson, Pool, File
Scott Watson at the High Court in Christchurch in 2015. Photo / John Kirk-Anderson, Pool, File
OPINION
The recent decision to refer Scott Watson's conviction for the murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope back to the Appeals Court may be the last opportunity to determine whether justice was actually achieved in his trial more than 22 years ago.
All previous appeals against his sentence havebeen unsuccessful. This seems strange because there are serious questions in relation to the verdict.
Ben Smart and Olivia Hope disappeared after last being seen boarding a boat in Endeavour Inlet in the Marlborough Sounds in the early morning hours of New Year's Day,1998. Together with many others, they had earlier been partying at the nearby Furneaux Lodge.
Scott Watson's boat, Blade and the apparent murder scene, at its Waikawa Bay mooring. Photo / Supplied, File
This later led to Scott Watson's arrest; he had also been at the Lodge that evening, but denies ever meeting the pair. In late 1999, following a three-month trial, he was found guilty of murdering Ben and Olivia, whose bodies were never found, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. He is still in prison.
The prosecution claimed that Ben and Olivia were dropped off at Scott Watson's small single-masted steel sloop, Blade. But the evidence from the water taxi driver, Guy Wallace, and his two other passengers, was that they were dropped off at a much larger wooden two-masted ketch.
Police did not follow up on investigations into the larger vessel, claiming it fairly certainly did not exist, even though several people reportedly saw a vessel fitting its description.
At the trial, after the prosecution showed him a photo of Watson supplied by police, Wallace said he was fairly sure that it was the man accompanying Ben and Olivia in the water taxi.
But this photo was taken long after the event, when Watson had much longer hair and lots of stubble. When subsequently shown a photo of Watson taken on New Year's Eve, when his hair was much shorter, Wallace agreed with the defence that this was not the man.
Subsequent to the trial, Wallace recanted his evidence, saying that Watson was "definitely not" the man he took on the water taxi that night. Another witness also recanted her evidence for similar reasons. A third witness, who was on the water taxi, told the court the mystery man's hair was wavy and "longish", which also does not fit with Scott Watson's appearance at the time.
Peter Whitmore. Photo / Supplied
The evidence from another water taxi driver was that Watson was dropped off alone at his own boat, which was rafted up to two other vessels. People on these boats heard him return around 3.30am. Right at the end of the trial, the prosecution introduced an argument that Watson must have subsequently gone ashore again, though they couldn't explain how, and come back with Ben and Olivia.
But all the available evidence now accords with them being accompanied by a different man, to a different boat in a different location.
Beyond that, it seems highly unlikely that a person returning from a party in the wee small hours of the morning would somehow organise a second shore visit. Also, had this happened, the people in the adjoining boats would likely have been aware of his second departure and return. They experienced nothing.
The only physical evidence in the prosecution's case was two hairs that may have belonged to Olivia, found during the second examination of a rug taken from Scott Watson's boat.
However, more recent reports question whether these hairs were actually Olivia's. Even if they were, there are three plausible explanations as to how they could have found their way into the rug sample without Olivia ever being present on the boat.
First, they were found on the rug on the same day that hairs from Olivia's hairbrush were examined on the same test table, breaching normal protocols by opening up the possibility of hair transfer. Second, they could have come via a so-called secondary transfer - somehow becoming attached to Watson's clothing at the Lodge, and from there being transferred to the rug. And third, while thankfully highly unlikely, one cannot totally rule out the possibility that they were deliberately placed on the rug to strengthen the case against Watson.
Let us hope and trust that the Appeals Court reviews very carefully the available evidence and decides whether the previous guilty verdict was really an appropriate outcome.
• Peter Whitmore has a background in engineering and climate change, but values a robust justice system to deal with concerning trial verdicts.
