Scott WATSON 12/03/2025

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

and

Hearing for Postponement Order

27(4)(b) of the Parole Act 2002

Scott WATSON

Hearing: 12 March 2025

at Christchurch Mens Prison

Members of the Board:

Sir R Young – Chairperson

Dr J Ioane

Mr A Hackney

Dr J Skipworth

Counsel:                                            Mr K Cook for Mr Watson

Ms C Boshier for the Department of Corrections

Media:

Ms A Leask – NZ Herald

Ms S Gee – Radio NZ

Ms C Norman – TVNZ

Ms C Owen - Stuff

In Attendance: [withheld] - Case Manager

Psychologists: 

[withheld]

[withheld]

[withheld]

[withheld]

Support Persons: [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

  1. On 12 March 2025, the Parole Board heard evidence from four psychologists to further inform them in considering parole for Mr Watson.
  2. The Board estimated that the hearing would take one day including having the opportunity of talking to Mr Watson and his family. That estimate was accepted by counsel as appropriate.
  3. Unfortunately, one day allocated was not sufficient. Equally unfortunately, complications arose regarding the prospect of continuing the hearing. We therefore invited counsel at the end of the hearing to consider whether the hearing could continue by providing Mr Watson and his family with the opportunity of talking with the Board and making any submissions with respect to parole. In addition, it was proposed that counsel would prepare written submissions to be filed within the next few days. We therefore invited counsel to respond that possibility by 11.30am on 13 March.
  4. Counsel have now responded. Counsel for Corrections say we should continue with the hearing, complete seeing Mr Watson and his family and then give a decision. Counsel for Mr Watson has set out in detail, that he considered that the hearing on 12 March was unfairly truncated given the time pressures and that he did not have adequate opportunity, particularly to lead further evidence from the psychologist that Mr Watson called to give evidence.
  5. We are conscious in such an important matter as this, that we ensure every fairness to Mr Watson. In those circumstances therefore, we accept the best way forward now is to abandon the previous hearing.  We do that rather than simply adjourn the hearing for the rest of the evidence and hearing to be completed. That is because the Chairperson of the Board, who presided at the hearing, is retiring on 31 March. It has not been possible to arrange for further hearing time before then. We will therefore start the parole hearing again locating two days to complete the hearing.
  6. To facilitate the next hearing, the Board will arrange for a transcript of the hearing of 12 March to be typed and provided to all relevant parties.

Sir R Young

Chairperson