Watson v The King

[2024] NZCA 586

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA450/2020
 [2024] NZCA 586

BETWEEN	SCOTT WATSON Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	French, Courtney and Thomas JJ
Counsel:	N P Chisnall KC, K H Cook, J Ding and H Z L Krebs for Appellant M F Laracy, S Baker, R M A McCoubrey, T R Simpson and L C Hay for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	13 November 2024 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 (Application to adduce further evidence)

AThe application to adduce further evidence is declined.

BCounsel for the appellant are to provide a response as specified at [6] by 4.00 pm on Wednesday 20 November 2024.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Thomas J)

1. At the hearing into Mr Watson’s appeal against his convictions for the murder of Olivia Hope and Ben Smart held on 10 to 14 June 2024, the Court asked when Mr Watson’s photograph was first shown in media reporting.  Counsel were to confer and provide the answer to the Court.

2. On 5 September 2024, counsel for Mr Watson filed an affidavit of Aaron Brown, saying in the accompanying memorandum that the affidavit was a result of the Court’s inquiries “about the media’s reporting of the Police inquiry particularly in relation to the issues pertaining to the identification matters”.  Counsel said they had “engaged a media expert who has obtained copies of the print media and audio‑visual media recorded during that time”.

3. Mr Brown’s affidavit exhibits 341 print media files and 63 audio visual files.  Mr Brown’s affidavit notes that the material exhibited may not be a complete record.

4. Following the Court’s advice that a formal application for leave to adduce further evidence was required, counsel filed a memorandum seeking leave, dated 4 October 2024.  The respondent opposes the application for leave and filed submissions dated 21 October 2024.

5. Having considered counsel’s submissions, we are satisfied that it is not in the interests of justice to admit the evidence.[1]  Detailed reasons will be provided in our judgment on the appeal.

   [1]Lundy v R [2013] UKPC 28, [2014] 2 NZLR 273 at [119].

6. In the meantime, we have not been provided with an answer to the question we asked during the hearing of the appeal.  Mr Brown’s affidavit did not answer the question.  The respondent in its memorandum of 10 September 2024 suggested an answer in paragraph 12.  While appellant counsel said they largely agreed with the respondent’s summary of the question, they did not either answer the question or comment on the respondent’s proposed answer.  Counsel are required to do so by 4.00 pm on Wednesday 20 November 2024.

Solicitors:

K3 Legal Ltd, Auckland for Appellant

Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent