Notorious double murderer Scott Watson’s latest bid for freedom has been delayed after the Parole Board raised concerns over vastly differing risk assessments by three psychologists.
The convicted killer’s fifth parole hearing began this morning but was adjourned soon after when the board raised the issue of the conflicting information in the reports.
Watson was jailed for life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years for the 1998 murders of Olivia Hope, 17, and Ben Smart, 21.
The friends disappeared after boarding a stranger’s yacht early on January 1, 1998, after marking the new year with friends at Furneaux Lodge, a century-old, boat access-only resort in Endeavour Inlet.
Their bodies have never been found.
He has always denied killing - or even ever meeting Hope and Smart after New Year’s celebrations in the Marlborough Sounds holiday hideaway.
He has repeatedly been denied parole since he became eligible and continues to fight to clear his name.
Watson appeared before the Parole Board via video link from prison this morning for the fifth time.
However, after questions were raised about psychological reports presented to the board, the hearing was adjourned.
Parole Board chair Sir Ron Young said the findings of reports completed over the past three years differed around Watson’s risk of reoffending.
In a 2021 report, Watson was found to be a “high to very high risk” of reoffending.
A 2023 Department of Corrections psychological report classed his as a “medium risk”.
And a recent private psychological report assessed him as “low risk”.
“Obviously that is a potentially confusing array of various assessments over quite a long period of time,” Sir Ron said at the hearing.
“We want to be clear in our own mind precisely what Mr Watson’s risk of reoffending is.
“Of course, risk can change. Risk generally changes because people do rehabilitation, come to understand why they’ve offended the way they have, and thereby they reduce their risk - and that’s perfectly understandable.
“But none of that applies in Mr Watson’s case.
“So we were struggling to identify what were the factors that had caused the change to go from high or very high down to medium... which seemed like a huge difference over a short period of time without any identifying reasons that we could understand.”
Watson’s lawyer Kerry Cook highlighted the two most recent reports stated the double murderer was “presenting with a level of risk that can be safely managed in the community”.
Sir Ron said a decision on whether Watson could be released could not be made without further clarity around the reports.
He suggested adjourning the hearing until a date when the various psychologists who wrote the reports could appear before the Parole Board and respond to questions around their risk assessments.
That would give the board a better understanding of Watson’s true risk.
“We don’t want additional material, it is really reconciling the various views as to risk,” Sir Ron told Cook.
“All the psychologists would be present, you could ask them questions, we could ask them questions.”
Cook and Watson accepted the board’s plan.
Sir Ron asked the inmate if he wanted to say anything to the board.
“No, no, just a thank you for letting me be here today,” he replied.
A new hearing date is yet to be determined.
At his last hearing in 2021, the board heard Watson had made “very little progress in addressing his risk of re-offending”.
“He was assessed then as being a very high risk of re-offending. He denied his offending,” said Sir Ron.
“Corrections then offered Mr Watson an opportunity to identify his treatment needs and to begin some form of treatment. It was agreed that there would be some further sessions with a psychologist essentially to see where that might lead to in terms of rehabilitation.”
At that hearing, Watson’s lawyer said he should be granted parole as he had “behaved well in prison”, had a very supportive family and a good release address, a job in the community and was agreeable to “tight electronic monitoring and other special conditions of parole that would ensure the communities safety”.
The board was not satisfied.
“The psychological report noted that Mr Watson has limited awareness of his and others’ emotions. He has a high psychopathy score,” Sir Ron said.
“The psychologist confirmed Mr Watson’s good conduct within the prison. He was co-operative and had a good work ethic. At times he could have a sense of entitlement if he did not get his own way, but these were not major concerns.
“The issue for the psychologist, and it is the core issue for us, arises from the fact that Mr Watson has had no risk-based treatment focusing on his offending.”
The board pointed out that Watson was convicted of killing “two vulnerable young people” and there was “a possibility raised” and “references” in court judgements that the offending may have been sexually motivated.
“These were therefore very unusual and very serious criminal offences. And so, the treatment response required an equally substantial intervention,” said Sir Ron.
“To assess risk and provide rehabilitative treatment there needed to be a full understanding of the facts that gave rise to the offending, the reasons why Mr Watson offended, and an understanding of the drivers of his offending in detail.
“Once that was achieved then work could begin on the risks that arose from an understanding of the offending.
“None of that work has been undertaken.”
Sir Ron said as a result Watson remained, as the psychologist stated, “someone capable of the callous and calculated murder of two strangers without any form of risk-based rehabilitation”.
“We agree with that assessment. That assessment is at the core of our view that he remains an undue risk,” he ruled.
The board acknowledged Watson’s behaviour in prison but said it was “of modest value compared with the untreated risk” identified.
“We accept that he has a supportive family, but their support and their oversight is also limited,” said Sir Ron.
“They take the view that he has been wrongly convicted... While we accept that the family will do their best, their best will inevitably be limited by the lack of a proper safety plan and a lack of risk-based rehabilitation.”
Watson still strenuously maintains he did not kill Ben and Olivia.
A Court of Appeal bid against his convictions was dismissed in 2000 and in 2003 the Privy Council declined to grant him special leave for a further appeal.
In 2013 an application to the Governor General to exercise the Royal prerogative of mercy was declined. A second attempt in 2017 was successful.
In 2020 Watson’s case was referred back to the Court of Appeal.
The appeal will be heard in June.
Last week an exhibition of Watson’s art opened at the Rei Gallery in Lyttleton.
The exhibition titled “in the public eye” will run until June 20 and has been organised by the Whakaraupō Carving Centre Trust.
A trust spokesperson provided a statement that said:
“‘in the public eye’,by Scott Watson, is an exhibition showcasing some of Scott’s whakairo and rauangi (carving/visual art) practices which he has produced over a 26-year period of incarceration.
“Curated by WCCT, ‘In the public eye’ will provide a visual narrative of Scott’s creative journey.”
The spokesperson explained that over the last 10 years the trust had supported both Māori and non-Māori prisoners with their release from prison, and with their reintegration back into their communities.
“This is done by providing a Māori kura kaupapa whose primary aims are uplifting tikanga, kawa, and Mātauranga. This is achieved by supporting the tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake of individual creative practices, skill sets and aspirations.
“As part of the WCCT kaupapa, a community collective has emerged, Te Whare o Rei (Rei Gallery). This is a space for creatives to undertake Toi Hua, a kaupapa Māori Toi Principle which focuses on the exhibition of creative mahi to a wider group or community.”
Anna Leask is a Christchurch-based reporter who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 18 years. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on nzherald.co.nz
