Photos only a part of 'overwhelming' case against Scott Watson, Crown says

Crown lawyers in the Supreme Court today say a photo montage at the heart of Scott Watson's appeal is only one piece of evidence in an "overwhelming" case against him.

Watson is appealing his conviction for the murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in Marlborough Sounds on New Years' Day in 1998.

His lawyers argue the evidence of water taxi driver Guy Wallace - used in the original trial - who picked out Watson in "Photo Montage B" as the man seen boarding a boat with the young pair, is inadmissible.

Crown lawyer Madeleine Laracy said the Crown always relied on a "large volume of evidence" - not just a photo montage.

"This was and is an overwhelming case."

Laracy referred to the Court of Appeal's judgment in 2024 - which rejected a previous bid by Watson to quash his convictions.

The Court of Appeal had found there were just too many factors pointing to Watson, Laracy said.

"If Mr Watson was not the man on the Naiad, then the lone man, like Mr Watson, happened to be alone, happened to have a yacht, happened to have moored his yacht out from the jetty, happened to be in the same age range, late twenties or early thirties, happened to have an appearance that was so like Mr Watson's as to mislead Mr Wallace into thinking it was the same man."

Crown lawyer Stuart Baker said Wallace's evidence did not solely rely on picking him out of a photo montage.

"This was not a case of a fleeting glance by Mr Wallace, rather Mr Wallace observed the male at the lodge for some time throughout the evening, both in the main bar and the garden bar."

Baker said Wallace gave descriptions of the "lone man", prior to going to the wharf, including who was on the naiad, where exactly they went, what was said, and a description of rafted boats in the bay, where the three people disembarked.

The justices questioned Baker on Watson's lawyers' argument that police pressured Wallace to identify Watson in an interview in early January, 1998.

"It was inappropriate wasn't it?" Justice Joe Williams asked.

"I've never in all the trials I did read an interview like that," Williams said.

Baker replied: "I accept that the officer...that the questioning was challenging, and was at a level that quite clearly wouldn't be dealt with at the present day."

Baker said Wallace didn't succumb to pressure at the time to identify Watson, and ended up identifying him due to other reliable factors.

Another key issue that came up in the hearing was the photo police used of Watson in Montage B.

Watson had his eyes half-closed in this photograph, and his lawyers said yesterday it unfairly stood out and led to Wallace and others identifying him.

Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann put to Baker that this was "quite an extraordinary photograph", and asked him whether it was acceptable for police to choose a photo that most closely matches witness descriptions.

Baker replied that he thought it was acceptable, but the other photos in the montage needed to have other similar characteristics.

He said it didn't have the effect of substantially leading people to choose Watson, because about half of the 53 people shown the photo in montage b chose Watson.

Laracy said a major point in the Crown's case at the original trial was motive.

"The motive is a long-harboured intention to kill a woman," she said, and in her address she referred to witnesses who had pointed to such comments expressed in different words and different places.

"It [That motive] is suffused throughout this Crown case, and the way it is held together, it's a very important aspect of the Crown's case for identity."

Watson's Court of Appeal bid sought to overturn his convictions on the question of reliability of DNA evidence of two blonde hairs found on Watson's boat, as well as the photo montage evidence.

The Supreme Court is only considering the question of whether a miscarriage of justice arose from the decision of the original trial judge to admit Wallace's photo ID evidence.

Tuesday's concludes the Supreme Court appeal hearing, with the justices reserving their decision.